Mass Shootings and Gun Debate 2018 Thread

[invegauser]

@swilow: good question. let me put it simply - no, no he does not have to. unless it is deemed a non SYG situation. then he has to.

basically an old white guy yelled at a younger black woman and a younger black guy came out, used physical force and the old white guy shot the young black guy in front of his kids. (apparently the rest of the details are unimportant)

when a person can look past all that which is misleading (on both sides of the table) in that story then anyone can see that swilow's question is a good and valid one among a list of others longer than your arm. though in this country we are allowed to make federal laws and state laws without adhering to moral guidelines, strict code of conduct, fearing retribution from a supreme deity or having to take an I.Q. test; it gets messy.

this isn't the wild west anymore, people can't just go around shooting other people without it leading to more problems. the SYG law is pretty ridiculous for today's world and leaves the door wide open to abuse (i.g. see trump presidency).

on the other hand guy comes out of a store and see's an older guy looking at his car and yelling at his girl, gets his panties in a bunch and decides he has to lay this guy out flat. personally it's not unreasonable to either get in your car and take off, try to talk it out or if in the event the other person seems completely unreasonable to ask them to step away politely and get help from a neutral third party to intermediate the situation. (more wishful thinking)

so the lesson to be taken away here is next time you see someone yelling at your girl, push them down and then duck so you don't get shot.

if everyone who got pushed in the world whipped out a gun and shot their attacker we wouldn't have to worry about population numbers getting too big. and by that logic if someone spits on you it's ok to shoot them too, you never know if they have some life threatening disease or illness that can be spread to you via saliva and it's ok if you take it as a sign of them intending to cause you harm via biological attack.

i need to do more research but so far it seems the responsibility lies on the judges shoulders to interpret the SYG law correctly before reasonable action can be taken. after that it's what they choose to charge him with, what evidence they can muster up, attorneys and all that.

that law seems a lil too induglnet as far as what is and isn't acceptable as far as protection goes.

 

[aihfl]

Jess, you're missing the forest for the trees with George Zimmerman. The guy got the benefit of the doubt and was acquitted in the Trayvon Martin case, but his continued pattern of antisocial behavior has proven that he's a sociopath. He was told by 911 dispatch to leave well enough alone and let the Sanford PD handle the situation and he couldn't do it. You're defending someone who's indefensible IMO. And just because you're innocent until proven guilty does not mean you shouldn't be arrested and charged. Gee, I sure wish it worked that way when I was arrested for DUI. You can't take me to jail officer, until a judge finds me guilty of driving drunk and high.

This article better elucidates why the shooter was eventually arrested and charged and why SYG should not apply:

CLEARWATER (WFLA) - The man accused in the controversial Stand Your Ground shooting death in Clearwater last month is now facing charges.
On Monday, the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office announced the State Attorney had finished reviewing the case and decided to charge 48-year-old Michael Drejka with manslaughter. Deputies say Drejka shot and killed 28-year-old Markeis McGlockton on July 19 in the parking lot of the Circle A Food Store on Sunset Point Road.

According to investigators, Drejka approached McGlockton's girlfriend, 24-year-old Britany Jacobs, who was parked in a handicapped parking spot outside the store. Drejka started to argue with Jacobs while she waited for McGlockton and his 5-year-old son, who had gone into the store. According to new court paperwork obtained by News Channel 8, witnesses claimed that Drejka was "very vocal and talking with his hands" and "appeared to be irate." One witness said he thought about intervening to help Jacobs. That person instead went inside and notified McGlockton about what was happening and said he might want to get involved.

Surveillance video shows McGlockton leave the store and push Drejka to the ground. Drejka then pulls out a gun. The new court documents say McGlockton "immediately backed up" when confronted with the gun and began to turn toward the front of the store, away from Drejka. "As he turns away from Michael Drejka, Michael Drejka fires one shot," the court documents say. McGlockton then ran back into the store and fell to the ground in front of his 5-year-old son, according to the documents.

After the incident, Drejka told detectives he shot McGlockton because he was in fear. He also told detectives no words were exchanged between him and McGlockton during the incident. During a reenactment of the incident, detectives say Drejka indicated that McGlockton was at least 10 feet away when he shot him.
At the time, Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri explained that Drejka was not arrested because the incident fell under Florida's Stand Your Ground law. The law grants immunity to anyone who uses deadly force if they can reasonably claim they were defending themselves. The case was turned over to the State Attorney, who completed his review and issued an arrest warrant. Deputies arrested Drejka Monday morning and booked him into the Pinellas County Jail, where he is being held on $100,000 bond.

"I support the State Attorney's decision and will have no further comment as the case continues to work its way through the criminal justice system," Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri said in a statement.

McGlockton's loved ones have insisted from the beginning that the shooting does not fall under the Stand Your Ground law. They say he was just protecting his family, and say Drejka's arrest provides the family with a "small measure of comfort in our time of profound mourning." "While this decision cannot bring back our partner, our son, our father, we take solace in knowing our voices are being heard as we work for justice," they said. "This man killed Markeis in cold blood, without a second thought about the devastating impact his actions would have on our family, but this charge gives us a measure of hope that the truth will win and justice will prevail in the end."

"It was everyone and what was so beautiful about it, it wasn't a black or white thing. It was a right or wrong thing," said family attorney Michele Rayner during a news conference on Monday. McGlockton's mother says charges being filed means she can start to heal. "I've just been in a daze because that was my baby," Monica Moore said. "So today when I heard that he was being charged I guess I can start healing. At least start."
McGlockton's father said during the news conference he thought Drejka should have been arrested from day one. He also mentioned the outpouring of support the family has received from the community. "This is only step one. I mean, once we get this guy behind bars for good, or for at least 30 years, that's justice to me," Michael McGlockton said. "I've gotten a ton of phone calls, a ton of emails, people around the world have been trying to get in contact with me giving me their support. They are offering their condolences and telling me to keep my head up and stay in the bible. Stay prayerful and everything will work out."

Benjamin Crump, the attorney who represented Trayvon Martin's family, has been hired to represent McGlockton's girlfriend. He released this statement following Drejka's arrest:

“My first thought on hearing this news was: It’s about time. I firmly stand behind the decision by the State Attorney's Office to charge Michael Drejka with manslaughter for killing Markeis McGlockton. This self-appointed wannabe cop attempted to hide behind ‘Stand Your Ground’ to defend his indefensible actions, but the truth has finally cut through the noise. I have full faith that this truth will prevail to punish this cold-blooded killer who angrily created the altercation that led to Markeis’ needless death. We will continue to fight until justice is brought for the family of Markeis McGlockton.”

Rayner released this statement:

"On behalf of the family of Markeis McGlockton, I commend the office of State Attorney Bernie McCabe for charging Michael Drejka with manslaughter for his cold-blooded actions. This is a big step forward in the direction of justice, not only for Markeis’ family but also for society as a whole."
After the incident, Drejka remained silent and declined to comment on what happened. Last week, News Channel 8 obtained new reports showing he has a history of road rage encounters. 8 On Your Side also previously spoke with a truck driver who claimed that he also got into a dispute with Drejka over the same handicapped space the led to last month's fatal shooting. That truck driver is mentioned in the new court documents.
Last month's incident in Clearwater gained national attention and drew heavy criticism of the Stand Your Ground law. Last week, Rev. Al Sharpton visited Clearwater and rallied to end it. Sheriff Gualtieri responded to the rally the next day, telling Sharpton to "Go back to New York" and "mind your own business."

Sharpton released this statement on Monday following Drejka's arrest:

"National Action Network (NAN) commends the Florida State Attorney’s Office for its decision to file manslaughter charges against Michael Drejka, who shot and killed Markeis McGlockton last month in a gross abuse of the state’s ‘stand your ground’ laws. These laws are an abomination that systematize a method of vigilante justice that consistently provides cover to racists and bigots for murdering innocent Black Americans – which is why I visited Clearwater this month to stand with NAN leaders and Florida’s Democratic candidates for Governor to call for putting an end to these kinds of laws once and for all. Today’s charges offer a ray of hope – but our work is not done. NAN will continue its work as the leading advocate for change in our nation’s broken criminal justice system."

https://www.wfla.com/1365515379?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

 

[JessFR]

Actually aihfl, I think it's more that for as crazy long as my post was, it STILL wasn't long enough to cover everything.

Thing is, I don't care. I don't care whatsoever. Because it doesn't matter. Even if zimmerman put in his will a statement saying "hah, suckers, I killed that kid cause I just hate blacks, I wake up every day just looking for a reason.". It still wouldn't change anything from my perspective.

The reason being of course, that even if he did that, it STILL wouldn't change the reality that, at the time, ALL the evidence said he was right to defend himself with lethal force. And that's all that matters. You don't charge someone for being a sociopath, you charge them because of you think what they actually did broke the law. And there isn't a shred of evidence that anything he did broke the law, or that those laws are in any way unjustified.

Now, for the record, I don't believe this argument anyway. I've kept following the zimmerman story too, and sure, the guy might have done some questionable things. But how can I trust that? The media has already been caught lying and distorting so many times about this subject. Because they want sensationalism and because they know people hate the guy and won't question it. And even despite that, nothing we've discovered since suggests to me that he had another rational choice but to shoot Martin or that he could have, and more importantly definitely should have done something different that day. And that's all that matters.

Even if the guys a scumbag, and he might be I really can't say I know for sure. The laws that protected him were totally justified. And people were villifying him since the very beginning, and have been looking for things to hate about him ever since. Imagine it were you, imagine you found yourself in a situation where THE WHOLE COUNTRY and people across the world despise you as a child killer, and you, honestly only did what you truly thought you had to to defend yourself. It would probably ruin your life. I certainly would blame you for acting like a dick after that.

And I'll say this once more, 911 directions are not legal commands, but even if they were, I've gone over it all many times, and there's no real evidence to suggest he did ignore them. Best I can tell, this idea that he ignored them comes entirely from the way the media edited the call.

Now, granted it's been a while since I went over it all yet again, it'd be like the 4th or 5th time. But I really don't want too do it again. I don't want to be right about this. I wish everyone else had been right. I've had people act like total pricks to me lots of times for speaking out the truth as I found it. So honestly, I'd have much preferred it if the evidence said zimmerman shot that kid cause he just hates black kids.

EDIT: sigh, I couldn't help myself. So I did a quick check of the time line, again, and found the same thing, again. OK so, from the time the 911 operator told him they didn't need zimmerman to follow him. Which is actually what they said, not "stop following him". And btw, if you think someone's gonna break into someone's house, and you're part of a community group that's suppose to prevent it, isn't that a reasonable thing you might do?

Anyhow, from the moment 911 said that, there was at most 4 minutes before the start of the altercation. Most likely about 2 and a half to 3. Assuming it took a few seconds for witnesses to call it in and based on the recordings. Zimmerman was near his vehicle at the time. There's a moment in the recording after he's asked not to follow him, that sounds like a car door chime.

There's simply no evidence that he continued to follow him after being sort of half advised not too, and barely any time for him to get away even if he'd decided to just run away in any direction at that point. This whole idea is a fabrication of the media. And even if it were true its still meaningless. He's not obligated to have followed such a command, and in his situation I can see why someone might be disinclined too. People just see it all how they wanna see it to make Martin the victim.

But, unfortunately for me, I'm not like this. I have this obsession with knowing the truth, even if it makes my life harder. And it does, make my life harder. I'd much prefer it if someone would show me real evidence that says zimmerman, in the situation he found himself in, could realistically have acted differently, and that any reasonable person would have realized that at the time. But I don't think such evidence exists or I'd expect to have found it long ago.

All that matters, is that any sensible person, community minded, following the law and using only the force needed to protect themselves against attack. (With real life standards, not movie standards. In real life Martin's attack absolutely warrants lethal force, no matter how people imagine it) InTHAT situation, I can't see how anyone could have been expected to act any differently in those circumstances when you really look at the evidence.

And the point is, even if zimmerman a scumbag, you can't expect prosecutors to prosecute based on psychic foreknowledge of someone's personality. Using the evidence available at the time, there was NO LEGAL CAUSE to charge him. No evidence he did anything wrong. And a fair bit of evidence he didn't. That's all that matters. Had he been tried, a jury would have been compelled to find him not guilty. And most likely would have. And then people would have said its just like OJ Simpsons and that it's still a corrupt system where the guilty always go free. When in reality, this is the kind of reason why. Those jurors end up having to know the whole truth, and are instructed to make a decision based in law, not emotion and media bs. And they'd go and do interviews like so many others talking about how they came in wanting to find him guilty, but just couldn't. And now society hates them for it. When in reality, it's society that's wrong really, not them.

 

[aihfl]

the guy might have done some questionable things

For someone who "doesn't care," that's quite the impressively verbose response. As to Zimmerman doing "questionable things," that's quite the understatement. Between all the road rage, wife beating and stalking, perhaps you would feel differently if this asshat was living in your community.

How would I have reacted? Well I would have followed the instruction of authorities and let the Sanford PD handle the situation. I certainly wouldn't have instigated a confrontation that would result in me having to use deadly force against someone. I don't give a rat's ass what the legality of 911 instructions are, I just would have followed directions. Let's say Trayvon was a burglar. It's the police's job to deal with criminals, not mine, as a private citizen.

 

[JessFR]

Except all the evidence says Martin instigated it. He turned the encounter life threatening. Not zimmerman. All he'd had to have differently was not attack zimmerman, and he'd still be alive.

But yes, it's an excellent mental exercise, putting yourself in zimmermans position. But just quickly before I do that, thank you for being calm and rational and listening. And sure, if zimmermans really a wife beater, I probably wouldn't want him living next to me, but it still changes nothing.

OK so, you're part of a community. That community is experiencing repeated break ins. You're civic minded, so you join the neighborhood watch. You're job is to volunteer to keep an eye on the homes in your neighborhood. You are NOT supposed to physically stop a potentially violent criminal of course, your safety is as important as anyone. It's just stuff, it's not worth someone getting hurt. So the expectation is that IF you see a break in, you are to observe all the details and call the police.

Since you have no idea what some random home invader might do when they see you on the phone to 911 or taking notes or filming them. You get a concealed carry permit, just, in case. Hopefully you'll never need it. You take some defense lessons, and naturally, they teach you that IF you're attacked, you shoot them. You don't fire a warning shot, in real life that puts others at risk, you have to know your target and what's beyond it. And if someone's beating you in the face and you're on the ground, they could overpower you and kill you so fast. In such circumstances, you shoot.

So you're off one day doing your neighborhood watch thing. You see someone, he doesn't look very old, but his appearance does match the people who've been robbing your community, and he's definitely not a local. So you keep an eye on him. You call the cops. You're still watching in the distance, the cops ask if you're following him. You kinda are, but you've now lost him. They say they don't need you to do that. You really kinda don't wanna let him get away, you're sick of people getting robbed and all those cops ever do is take a report, and you write one to your insurance, Noone is ever caught. So you probably don't wanna just do nothing, but, he's disappeared, so you comply. You head back to your vehicle, when you suddenly see the kid again, he's asking why youve been following him and is clearly angry. He attacks you, punches you in the face and to the ground. So, you do what you've been trained to do. This is a life threatening assault, people DO die in these situations. And your armed, if he sees your weapon and over powers you, you're done. So you shoot. You only had split seconds to react, and so naturally you defended yourself because you had no other options.

Now, we obviously don't know if any of this was going through zimmermans mind at the time. But it perfectly matches the events. Also you're not zimmerman anymore, you're now the prosecutor. You look at the evidence. The evidence definitely suggests zimmermans story is true. And now you're the prosecutor. You know the people want this guy prosecuted. But you also know the law. You know there's no evidence that this guy broke the law. If you charge him, no courts gonna convict him. Even if the jury is REALLY dumb and convict, it'll be overturned on appeal in an instant. Your job compels you not to waste public money on a prosecution you know you're gonna lose, not to mention that you'll be blamed by the public, seen to have botched it. And speaking of the public, they'll just be pissed for longer and get even more angry when they're inevitably found innocent.

Those are the facts of the case as they stand. Now maybe it didn't happen quite like that, but it absolutely could have. Even if zimmermans a wife beating asshole, that still could have been how it went down. And the fact remains that the law HAS to be this way, or innocent people will be put in jail for honestly defending themselves. It HAS HAPPENED BEFORE.

There's another side to this. Say this time it really IS you. And the same thing happens. Only this time you really could have run away. Zimmerman couldn't according to the evidence we have, but you could. But you didn't. You were in a split second self defense situation. You reacted. Sure, the kid started it, but you didn't wanna have to kill them. They were still a kid. But all you were thinking about at the time was staying alive. You might wish you could go back, try and do it differently, tried to run instead of fight. But you can't. That's how you reacted at the time, and there's no taking it back. You didn't even have a gun. You had a small pocket knife, you used it to defend yourself when you were attacked, but you punctured an artery and they bled out and died. It all happened in seconds.

It's horrible that a kid died, but, he attacked you, you might not have wanted to kill him, and you feel horrible for it. But you don't deserve to go to jail for it.

Except you will, cause the law says it doesn't matter that you had seconds to react. You see years ago some guy named zimmerman was in a similar situation. He actually couldn't retreat at all, it had nothing to do with stand your ground. But you know how people are, how the media is. It might not have started being about stand your ground, but it brought it into the forefront. And it was repealed.

And now, the law says you should have known better. You were expected to evaluate in those split seconds to react that you could run instead of fight. You're not a bad person, you didn't mean to hurt anyone, you wish you could take it back too. But it doesn't matter, circumstances beyond your control mean you will now go to jail.

This HAS happened to people in states without stand your ground. And I personally think that's pretty fucking unjust.

Self defense is instinct, unless you've trained over and over, how you react may not entirely make perfect 2020 hindsight sense. All your mind is concerned with is survival. Not keeping your attacker alive. You can't be expected to be perfect, and you shouldn't be.

Oh, and even when you get out of jail, your life's as good as over. Society hates you. You will get death threats in the mail for life. The media distorting and highlighting your every mistake for life. The public doesn't know or care about your side. All they have to tell you is you're a monster, if you weren't, you'd never have been watching that kid to start with, you'd have teleported away the second 911 told you in no uncertain terms to leave. They didn't, that's not what they said, but that's how people imagine it. You'd never have left the house with a knife, you obviously wanted to kill someone. And everyone else knows how they'd have reacted. Not that they'd know, but in their mind they do.

So congrats, you're going to jail, and when you get out, youre life's pretty much over. Try getting a job now, your employers gonna get death threats until they fire you. How dare they hire a racist child murderer. Try not to feel too angry or fucked over by this turn of events though, cause your every violent action or words will be used by the media to rile everyone up again.

Sure, to YOU the kid sure was big and strong enough to break your face in. But that's reality, you have people's ideal imaginations of the event to compare with, and years of the media distorting the facts. You might know you can't possibly have gotten away in the 3 minutes between being told you don't need to follow them. Can't have known you needed to just run away at full sprint instead of walking back to your car. Couldn't have known what would happen. But reality doesn't matter, you're dealing with people's imaginations and half informed half lied too version's of the events. The media edited the 911 call so it sounds like you kept following after 911 told you otherwise. That's all most people will ever hear. You got no chance of reality winning out over all that. Fucking president Obama even took the kids side for christ sake. You're fucked.

Zimmerman might be a total scumbag. But that's not justification to put him in prison. The facts of Trayvon Martin's death, the evidence, very clearly show that there's no evidence of wrongdoing by zimmerman. Whatever he may or may not have done wrong since then doesn't matter. Even if he murdered his wife today, you'd prosecute him for that. Not just go back and add the Martin killing too it when you still have no evidence he did anything wrong. Even an asshole can wind up in a situation where they were justified in defending themselves.

 

[aihfl]

JACKSONVILLE - Multiple people are dead, including at least one suspect, after a mass shooting Sunday at the Jacksonville Landing, according to the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office. Police are asking that anyone hiding inside the Landing should call 911 so they can get to them.

About three blocks are cordoned off around the Landing in downtown, both on the streets and it appears on the Northbank Riverwalk. Witnesses saw people being removed on stretchers and others being carried out by people. Authorities have asked the public and media to stay away from the area, which they say is not safe at this time. The city released a statement saying Mayor Lenny Curry and Sheriff Mike Williams are in contact about what’s happening at the Landing. The two are expected to address the media later today, according to the statement released on Twitter.

The Times-Union has multiple journalists on the way to the scene. Follow @jaxdotcom on Twitter and check for updates on Jacksonville.com throughout the day. Coast Guard boats are out on the St. Johns River.

http://www.jacksonville.com/news/20...pect-in-mass-shooting-at-jacksonville-landing

 

[aihfl]

Follow up. When will there be the political will to take steps toward restricting the accessibility of guns to the mentally ill??? (The two guns used were purchased legally by the perp)

The suspect in a deadly shooting at a Florida video game tournament had previously been hospitalized for mental illness, according to court records in his home state of Maryland reviewed by The Associated Press. Divorce filings from the parents of 24-year-old David Katz of Baltimore say that as a teenager he was twice hospitalized in psychiatric facilities and that he was prescribed anti-psychotic and antidepressant medications. The records show Katz’s parents disagreed on how to care for their troubled son, with his father claiming his estranged wife was exaggerating symptoms of mental illness as part of their long-running and acrimonious custody battle. The couple divorced in 2007.

Katz killed two people and wounded nine others before fatally shooting himself at the "Madden NFL 19" tournament in Jacksonville, authorities said.
He was known to barely speak to fellow gamers and sometimes exhibited an erratic playing style, according to other competitors, who were baffled that their virtual sport could lead to bloodshed. "We’ve always known he was a little off and stuff just because he wasn’t social at all," gamer Shay Kivlen, 21, of Seattle, said Monday in an interview.

Jacksonville Sheriff Mike Williams has declined to comment on why Katz opened fire inside a gaming bar connected to a pizzeria at The Jacksonville Landing, a collection of restaurants and shops along the St. Johns River. Williams said he used at least one handgun in the attack.

https://www.tbo.com/news/publicsafe...wice-for-mental-illness-records-say_171261367

 

[JessFR]

Gun control in the US is currently at a stalemate. There's really no telling how long it could continue for. Another few years? Another few decades? Longer even perhaps?

One things pretty certain, nothings gonna change soon.

 

[aihfl]

Gun control in the US is currently at a stalemate. There's really no telling how long it could continue for. Another few years? Another few decades? Longer even perhaps?

One things pretty certain, nothings gonna change soon.

Not, at least, until Millenials and Generation Z become a political force.

 

[JessFR]

Not, at least, until Millenials and Generation Z become a political force.

I doubt it'll happen then either. Generations often start out left learning, but when they get older enough to take control of society, they tend to become much more mixed.

And there's no shortage of pro gun millennials.

 

[aihfl]

And there's no shortage of pro gun millennials.

They're vastly outnumbered. And I highly doubt Emma Gonazalez, the articulate young lady who spoke out in the aftermath of the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School massacre, and her like minded peers, are going to ever to be conservative reactionaries. Yeah maybe in places like Mississippi and Idaho more Millennials are pro-gun than anti-gun, but that's not where the population and power centers are. Demographics alone, as we come closer to being a minority-majority country, may very well cause the country to drift left. Personally I think it's inevitable as "red states" like the two I mentioned above, become more depopulated and the population grows in states with large urban populations.

 

[JessFR]

They're vastly outnumbered. And I highly doubt Emma Gonazalez, the articulate young lady who spoke out in the aftermath of the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School massacre, and her like minded peers, are going to ever to be conservative reactionaries.

They are today. Give it time though. Sure, some people won't change, but many less dedicated to one side will.

If it were as simple as liberal youth growing up, we'd be living in a world of the left vs the really far left.

As people grow up, many become more conservative.

And I'm not sure if even today they're as outnumbered as you might think. It's easy to think you're seeing an accurate average of people when you aren't. It's a trap we all can easily fall into.

I don't think the pro gun side, or the right, is going anywhere soon.

 

[aihfl]

You're probably right about the NRA and gun nuts (for the record, I own guns myself) not going anywhere, but if you think these Parkland kids are going to let this go, you're living under a rock. Maybe it's because this is taking place in my backyard and you live half a world away, but they are still getting press coverage and I am heartened by the passion I see in these kids. After teaching college kids, who I largely saw as aimless, in the 2000s, these kids make me think that maybe our future isn't so bleak after all.

And just to use myself as an example, what about myself and some of my closest friends from college who were ultra right wing reactionaries at the time but went in the opposite direction? It isn't a one way street like you're making it out to be.

Demographic shifts are going to render the Republican Party irrelevant before long. I dated a therapist a few years ago and I believe the psychological term for an outburst of bad behavior (i.e. during a relationship breakup) is an "extinction burst." Donald Trump and the do nothing Congress is the right's extinction burst.

 

[hydroazuanacaine]

how does mental health based gun control work? are there any countries that have a successful model? when you receive mental health care for select conditions the provider submits your medical info to the federal government and they put you on a list? only gun retailers get access to that list or can it be accessed in other background checks? the provider determines whether you qualify or all info is sent and a government agency then makes that call? is the determination only made for patients receiving care after the bill is passed or will past medical records be reviewed? who determines the criteria and is it publicly known? once you are on the list are you are made aware or only if you attempt to purchase a firearm? is attempting to purchase and/or possessing a firearm when on that list a crime? is being on the list permanent? can those who can afford to do so contest it in court? does it only apply to future purchases or can owned firearms be confiscated? does it apply to certain classes of firearms like pistols and assault rifles or all firearms including range guns, hunting rifles, and shotguns?

 

[invegauser]

^ poorly apparently. idk, does anyone have a successful model of anything today other than for ripping people off?! something like that. private sellers taking the same route as commercial businesses get access when they run your application, security jobs, government jobs and armed forces recruiting check it against the database. assuming you mean mental health provider no, it usually is up to a few circumstances - known previous violent crimes and it works against you if weapons are involved, severity of mental illness and suicide attempts; your usually ran through the legal system when one of these comes up and pegged as not able to own a gun so the provider doesn't have to inform anyone though sometimes they are required to report it to a federal office in cases of the first two being zero and the last one being ear marked. most likely after it has passed it is retro enacted because before the bill is passed those who were dangerous are still dangerous after it passed and did not wake up and suddenly not become a danger anymore; that rarely happens and that also rarely happens as those deemed unfit to own a firearm rarely manage their symptoms well enough to overcome them; it's all part of the stigma but also based in truth; one of those better to be safe than sorry kinda things for everybody. psychiatrists and federal government based on evaluations and track record. you are made aware of it but if you are not for whatever reason and do attempt to purchase a firearm you wont be arrested, just politely or rudely turned down; your shrink wont hear about it either unless you're really out there recently and they need to give you extra attention to make sure your not a harm or danger to yourself or others. no, just a waste of time; unless it is illegally purchasing it then yes, yes it is a crime, a federal one. pretty much. no, your not getting off the list by throwing money at it or some slick lawyer. owned firearms can be confiscated if they are yours but if you live with family or someone else who own them those will not be; they have to keep them under lock and key away from said individual. anything over a spit ball gun because there are more than just firearm restrictions in play like you can't own explosives aside from what's under your kitchen sink, crossbows are not illegal though looked down upon but other than that if it has some sort of explosive, dangerous and harmful projectile and can be used to snuff out someones life your not going to get your hands on it in the legal way.

next time let's use spaces so everyone can play, i'm joking and i suck at being funny. it's just easier for anyone to read and more interesting with breaks in the typing.

kinda like this:

^ 1. poorly apparently. 2. idk, does anyone have a successful model of anything today other than for ripping people off?! 3. something like that. 4. private sellers taking the same route as commercial businesses get access when they run your application, security jobs, government jobs and armed forces recruiting check it against the database.

5. assuming you mean mental health provider no, it usually is up to a few circumstances - known previous violent crimes and it works against you if weapons are involved, severity of mental illness and suicide attempts; your usually ran through the legal system when one of these comes up and pegged as not able to own a gun so the provider doesn't have to inform anyone though sometimes they are required to report it to a federal office in cases of the first two being zero and the last one being ear marked.

6.most likely after it has passed it is retro enacted because before the bill is passed those who were dangerous are still dangerous after it passed and did not wake up and suddenly not become a danger anymore; that rarely happens and that also rarely happens as those deemed unfit to own a firearm rarely manage their symptoms well enough to overcome them; it's all part of the stigma but also based in truth; one of those better to be safe than sorry kinda things for everybody.

7. psychiatrists and federal government based on evaluations and track record. you are made aware of it but if you are not for whatever reason and do attempt to purchase a firearm you wont be arrested, just politely or rudely turned down; your shrink wont hear about it either unless you're really out there recently and they need to give you extra attention to make sure your not a harm or danger to yourself or others. 8. no, just a waste of time; unless it is illegally purchasing it then yes, yes it is a crime, a federal one.

9. pretty much. 10. no, your not getting off the list by throwing money at it or some slick lawyer. 11. owned firearms can be confiscated if they are yours but if you live with family or someone else who own them those will not be; they have to keep them under lock and key away from said individual.

12. anything over a spit ball gun because there are more than just firearm restrictions in play like you can't own explosives aside from what's under your kitchen sink, crossbows are not illegal though looked down upon but other than that if it has some sort of explosive, dangerous and harmful projectile and can be used to snuff out someones life your not going to get your hands on it in the legal way.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

Follow up. When will there be the political will to take steps toward restricting the accessibility of guns to the mentally ill??? (The two guns used were purchased legally by the perp)

I honestly don't think it can work, regardless of what measures are put in place. Yes, it can prevent them from 'purchasing' guns (say, if they are on a do-not-sell-to list). However, there are how many unregistered and illegal guns in the country today being sold on the black market? Back alley dealers don't care how crazy you are, only how much money you have for the deal. Closer to home for me would be how many legally registered guns simply aren't locked up and protected enough? My state is very hunter friendly, so much so that business close for hunting season knowing they will have workers call in 'sick' to go get deer.

Alternatively, a shop may have guns to protect itself, but are they properly secured...or available for a late night burglary with intent to arm oneself?

My point is that while I am all in favor of legally preventing mentally ill from owning guns, the fact that guns are so prevalent and ingrained in American society that it will be impossible to prevent people from getting their hands on one illegally. The genie is out of the bottle on that one.

 

[TheLoveBandit]

They're vastly outnumbered. And I highly doubt Emma Gonazalez, the articulate young lady who spoke out in the aftermath of the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School massacre, and her like minded peers, are going to ever to be conservative reactionaries. Yeah maybe in places like Mississippi and Idaho more Millennials are pro-gun than anti-gun, but that's not where the population and power centers are. Demographics alone, as we come closer to being a minority-majority country, may very well cause the country to drift left. Personally I think it's inevitable as "red states" like the two I mentioned above, become more depopulated and the population grows in states with large urban populations.

As people grow up, many become more conservative.

And I'm not sure if even today they're as outnumbered as you might think. It's easy to think you're seeing an accurate average of people when you aren't. It's a trap we all can easily fall into.

I don't think the pro gun side, or the right, is going anywhere soon.

You're probably right about the NRA and gun nuts (for the record, I own guns myself) not going anywhere, but if you think these Parkland kids are going to let this go, you're living under a rock. Maybe it's because this is taking place in my backyard and you live half a world away, but they are still getting press coverage and I am heartened by the passion I see in these kids. After teaching college kids, who I largely saw as aimless, in the 2000s, these kids make me think that maybe our future isn't so bleak after all.

Ahifl, you're too close to the situation, IMO. In my part of the country, we hear NOTHING about them anymore. Not even David Hogg. Not a peep in the news media. There are message board comments, but not part of public discourse outside of S. Fla. I agree they will likely never change to conservative mindsets (at least as it comes to guns) because of the impact guns have had on their lives, but they may become conservative in other respects. As noted, that's generally how Americans think (yes, gross stereotype at work here), but young and free and not holding me back is that youthful mindset that feeds the liberal view. But as one ages, a persons mindset faces a decision, IMO. If they lived their life in the liberal view and achieved what they consider 'success' or happiness, they will want to support other generations with the same values to achieve the same end. If they have some sense of wealth that is 'earned' and a family to take care of, they may shift to protecting what they've earned and feel others should earn their own end.

I think it comes down to, essentially, how much individual ownership you have in your destiny, vs how much is/should_be given to you by your government. I don't want to derail the gun thread into a political split discussion; but at heart it's a reflection of 'earn and keep mine' vs 'what is best for all of us'. And if it is 'protecting mine', a gun is handy. If it is 'make it all fair for everyone' then a gun becomes not needed.

I think you're both right, though, that both points of view will stand for a long time, if not forever. Difference of opinion is key to America. It will only change if one side takes power and outlaws the other view. This is possible, but not likely, IMO. Certainly not in my lifetime.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobby...trol-group-we-simply-cannot-stand-by-silently

sigh.

 

[HeadphonesandLSD]

They're vastly outnumbered.

Depends on the area of the country you live in. They may be outnumbered in the city but in the country most everyone is pro-gun or doesn't care about them much. I've personally taught 5 kids this year in the age range of 6-12 to shoot a rifle for the first time. They're all a bit scared of them until they make that first shot then you can't keep them away. We teach good habits and safety before we ever allow them to shoot one of course.

I realize this may sound odd to someone that doesn't live around guns but here it's really common. All my friends have kids in that age bracket right now and almost all of them want the kids to learn to shoot. It's considered a basic skill and we just assume to teach them respect/safety/proper use of firearms young instead of worrying about them attempting it on their own. I can say with confidence that all my friend's kids know better than to play with a gun. Most people here don't even keep guns locked up unless they're considered rare/valuable. Most people here also keep them loaded and ready to go. At best they'll place it somewhere high in a closet if they have a toddler running around but as soon as a child turns 4-5 you start teaching them so you don't have to worry about it.

By the time I was 6 I was expected to know how to use guns and trusted with them incase I ever had to defend the place or my family. There was always a shotgun loaded behind a door or a rifle hanging up in the closet. Right now I have four in my bedroom; pump shotgun by the bed, AR-15 and M1 Carbine loaded and ready to go in the closet, pistol in the night stand. My Grandmother has a revolver by the bed. My Uncle has one stashed somewhere in his room too. My Dad has a revolver in his nightstand. My Great Uncle has multiple loaded guns in every room of his house. My brother has a shotgun I bought him by his bed. It's very common with folks around here and we aren't even considered gun nuts. We don't talk about it and we don't carry NRA cards or go to the range. Out of all the people I mentioned in my family I'm the only one that target shoots for fun.

Ironically, my step father who taught me how to hunt/initially got me interested in target shooting became very anti-gun over the last year or so. He lives near Florida and his daughter had just gotten out of high school when the last school shooting happened. I was very surprised when he jumped down my throat when he found out I built a custom AR. He considers them unnecessary while owning more guns than me. He's defended his home several times with them too. So people's opinions are all over the place and based on their fears. Having owned several ARs I know they aren't any different than any other rifle really. I consider my ARs pussy cats compared to some of the other rifles I own. My Garand is probably the most powerful weapon I have right now and I could kill a man from a mile away with it if I took a notion too. All my anti-gun friends think it's just a deer rifle.

Of course none of that really matters. Gun nuts will call a .22 rifle weak and insufficient for self defense but none of them will volunteer to stand in front of one. I know I'm ranting again, my fault, I just don't see the point in attempting to ban something or being scared of something that is just a tool. Every anti-gun person I know refuses to have them but will call me up in a heartbeat to take care of a snake problem with one.

When I eventually have kids I just plan on teaching them about guns early and often like my Dad did. I always knew better than to touch his pistol because he showed me what it'd do to a milk jug when I was around 4 years old. He bought me a pellet rifle a year or so later and I turned out to be a natural shot. A year after that I had my own .22 rifle and was allowed to roam the farm with it whenever I pleased.

 

[iridescentblack]

I honestly don't think it can work, regardless of what measures are put in place. Yes, it can prevent them from 'purchasing' guns (say, if they are on a do-not-sell-to list). However, there are how many unregistered and illegal guns in the country today being sold on the black market? Back alley dealers don't care how crazy you are, only how much money you have for the deal. Closer to home for me would be how many legally registered guns simply aren't locked up and protected enough? My state is very hunter friendly, so much so that business close for hunting season knowing they will have workers call in 'sick' to go get deer.

Alternatively, a shop may have guns to protect itself, but are they properly secured...or available for a late night burglary with intent to arm oneself?

My point is that while I am all in favor of legally preventing mentally ill from owning guns, the fact that guns are so prevalent and ingrained in American society that it will be impossible to prevent people from getting their hands on one illegally. The genie is out of the bottle on that one.

Funny.
Japanese have a very specific law about guns kept in locked cabinets at pretty much all times. They're inspected too, once a year I would assume. Makes sense to keep things locked up like that since any invaders would almost have to call before being on the front doorstep. Not so much the case for Oklahoma or Texas where you can shoot someone near or on your property if they so much even 'look threatening'. And the Japanese are pretty crazy.

Mentally ill + guns = threat? The media has a bad habit of portraying schizophrenics (for example) as being super-psychopaths. I've known a few and they honestly seem more cudly than to be like that. Maybe I'm wrong though. I'm pretty sure they're no threat to you as most of them would more likely shoot themselves. But somehow this is a bad thing in the public eye.

I'm personally not allowed to own a gun as I am somewhat ill of the mind. This has honestly driven me to find more interesting ways of defending myself like calling the good for nothing cops who will more likely blame me for what is going on than dealing with an issue at large. You' peoples' views on the mentally ill are noteworthy but you so called normal asses fail to take into account that you see us as undesirables anyway. As I recall, blacks received some of the same treatment once upon a time.