forums

Off-Topic Mass killings

JD08 said:
He was also posting disturbing drawings. Someone with mental health issues needs treatment and subsequent approval of doctors before owning a weapon.
Click to expand...

I can see this problem expanding. First amendment rights in his drawings.
 
Advertisement
imurcane said:
I can see this problem expanding. First amendment rights in his drawings.
Click to expand...
It's most likely going to get struck down by the Supreme Court in the next session, but NY just passed a new gun law and part of the background check is to require people to give their social media accounts so they can be checked "to confirm the information regarding the applicant’s character and conduct"!

www.axios.com

New York bill could mandate social media checks for gun permit applications

The checks would be part of a process to verify the applicant’s "character and conduct."
www.axios.com www.axios.com
 
imurcane said:
I can see this problem expanding. First amendment rights in his drawings.
Click to expand...
We obviously have to protect people's civil rights, but it can be done. It doesn't help that people are always talking about banning and confiscating guns. Maybe if the populace didn't think it was all a ruse, they'd be more receptive.
 
hotshot said:
Putting hindsight totally aside (before he fatefully climbed that ladder), how many Gun Rights advocates would've said Crimo was a 100% slam dunk candidate for red-flagging/denial of gun purchase.

It's a sad fact but, guys in his age group, often threaten suicide or harm to their immediate family during heated arguments. Crimo had no police record, made no threats against anyone but himself and family, the incidents were 3 yrs old, etc. Can we confidently state as a matter of decided precedent as we move on that anyone with his background should not be able to buy a weapon? And, for how long should that ban apply? Some arbitrary age? Lifetime?

My guess is Gun Control folks will find this an easy slam dunk answer; the strong 2A advocates, maybe not.
Click to expand...
I’m obviously a huge 2A advocate, but I’m also very aware of the mental health crisis we have. Which is why we need to open up more hospitals and if you say you want to kill yourself or other, you get admitted. Period. He was another prime candidate
 
JD08 said:
He was also posting disturbing drawings. Someone with mental health issues needs treatment and subsequent approval of doctors before owning a weapon.
Click to expand...
Definitely.

Gonna be a difficult matter in many cases to (1) identify those with mental health issues (someone has to "turn them in" to authorities, never easy), and (2) determine how serious the issues are, who to red flag, and for how long.

I could see psychiatrists/psychologists reluctant to "sign off" on patients to be eligible for gun ownership. I mean, you OK the person, then they go out and start shooting ... your career is over.
 
Advertisement
look at this ******* guy that shot up the 4th of July Parade. My god what a ******* derelict. Should have just shot himself and called it a life.
 
ithacane said:
If I read it correctly... he threatened to commit suicide in April 2019 and then in Sept of the same year threatened to kill "everyone" in his house when the police seized 16 knives and some other goodies. But in December his Dad sponsors him to be able to get firearms and he passes 4 background checks and gets 5 guns?!? The system is F'd up if you can do that... let alone only a few months after the police seizure of weapons (which you would assume would be flagged somehow in the dudes history, right? i mean, what is the point of Red Flag laws if it's not?).

Epic failure here and what kind of $hitty parents and Uncle (whom he was supposedly living with ... or behind in an apartment) are they to not notice any of this or more likely... just ignore it?!? WTF!
Click to expand...
I bet if his parents had to face some type of repercussions over the shooting we’d have more parents paying attention to their f’d up kids
 
Tony4Miami said:
Should his dad be accountable in any way since he helped him get the rifles?
Click to expand...
If he was aware of the suicide incidents (he said he was not), then I'd say yes. Then again, if he was so checked out on caring for his son that he WASN'T aware of the suicide incidents, he shouldn't be signing in the first place IMO.
 
NC_Canes_11 said:
I’m obviously a huge 2A advocate, but I’m also very aware of the mental health crisis we have. Which is why we need to open up more hospitals and if you say you want to kill yourself or other, you get admitted. Period. He was another prime candidate
Click to expand...
Neighbor's son actually tried to overdose. In that instance, there was no option, he was hospitalized (for a set period, and against his will I think). If he'd only verbally threatened suicide, I don't think that would have played out that way. One instance, there'd be a record; the other, probably not!

Aside from the gun issue, there's the need for more hospitals/hospitalization of folks with mental issues (as opposed to "mainstreaming" them in the population and hoping nothing bad will happen to them or others). The"Homeless" crisis is heavily about this, is it not?

Unfortunately, building/staffing more state mental hospitals requires higher taxes/more tax dollars. As for that, I could think of worse places for tax dollars to go.
 
Advertisement
hotshot said:
Neighbor's son actually tried to overdose. In that instance, there was no option, he was hospitalized (for a set period, and against his will I think). If he'd only verbally threatened suicide, I don't think that would have played out that way. One instance, there'd be a record; the other, probably not!

Aside from the gun issue, there's the need for more hospitals/hospitalization of folks with mental issues (as opposed to "mainstreaming" them in the population and hoping nothing bad will happen to them or others). The"Homeless" crisis is heavily about this, is it not? Unfortunately, building/staffing more state mental hospitals requires higher taxes/more tax dollars.
Click to expand...
I agree with everything you said except for more tax dollars. There’s plenty of money to pull from. Just need to stop wasting it on other stuff and focus on this. It’s a real issue that’s gotten way out of hand. IMO a top 3 issue.
 
NC_Canes_11 said:
I agree with everything you said except for more tax dollars. There’s plenty of money to pull from. Just need to stop wasting it on other stuff and focus on this. It’s a real issue that’s gotten way out of hand. IMO a top 3 issue.
Click to expand...
Agree on the Top 3 issue comment. It surely is.

You may be right on the tax dollar thing. Hopefully the money could be reallocated (I'm sure some wags, not me, might suggest the Police or Defense budgets).

The "For Profit," high-priced Private mental health rehab places around the country are not gonna take care of guys with profiles like these shooters. When mental health hospitals proliferated throughout the USA, they were invariably State-run institutions (aka "snake pits"), and formed a vast bureaucracy at a high cost. That was the main reason so many closed; taxpayers decided they no longer wanted to foot that bill.
 
hotshot said:
Definitely.

Gonna be a difficult matter in many cases to (1) identify those with mental health issues (someone has to "turn them in" to authorities, never easy), and (2) determine how serious the issues are, who to red flag, and for how long.

I could see psychiatrists/psychologists reluctant to "sign off" on patients to be eligible for gun ownership. I mean, you OK the person, then they go out and start shooting ... your career is over.
Click to expand...
There's the rub. If you post something on social media, it's in the public square. Make them report it.

Providers need to be exempt from liability in those cases. They need to be able to attest that they don't believe them to be a threat, not that they give approval.


This requires the gun grabbers to not be ********. If they truly care abut lives, it's possible.
 
JD08 said:
There's the rub. If you post something on social media, it's in the public square. Make them report it.

Providers need to be exempt from liability in those cases. They need to be able to attest that they don't believe them to be a threat, not that they give approval.


This requires the gun grabbers to not be ********. If they truly care abut lives, it's possible.
Click to expand...
You think the gun grabbers would not be for this? I'd argue it would be the staunch 2Aers who would say it is their right to have any gun they want. It would be a violation of their freedom of speech and artistic expression to "red flag" them based on drawings on social media. You can't let the tyrannical government have that kind of power.

Are we going to require mental health experts to keep tabs on their patients' social media accounts? Who pays for the time and effort to do that?

And finally, we are never going to get anywhere as a country with the constant namecalling on both sides. Do you really think people who want an assault weapons ban are ********? They don't really want to save lives, but just want to do it to infringe on your rights?
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
CaneinBroward said:
LOL You think the gun grabbers would not be for this? I'd argue it would be the staunch 2Aers who would say it is their right to have any gun they want. It would be a violation of their freedom of speech and expression to
Click to expand...
Their opposition would be entirely because the grabbers would try to abuse it.

Kind of like how it's always the CCW holders lists that accidentally get leaked.
 
JD08 said:
Their opposition would be entirely because the grabbers would try to abuse it.

Kind of like how it's always the CCW holders lists that accidentally get leaked.
Click to expand...
So now we go back to the beginning of the circle, how do you have red flag laws or background checks if you think one side is going to "abuse it"? Is it just easier to say "it's mental health", but don't do anything about it because grabbers will abuse the system?

That data breach is bs. They should investigate and hold those responsible to account.
 
JD08 said:
There's the rub. If you post something on social media, it's in the public square. Make them report it.

Providers need to be exempt from liability in those cases. They need to be able to attest that they don't believe them to be a threat, not that they give approval.


This requires the gun grabbers to not be ********. If they truly care abut lives, it's possible.
Click to expand...
Good points all.

I'd say medical doctors performing an abortion to address the "health of the mother" should get the same type exemption from liability. They'd have to "defend" their initial decision but not be open to second guessing later.
 
Advertisement
CaneinBroward said:
So now we go back to the beginning of the circle, how do you have red flag laws or background checks if you think one side is going to "abuse it"? Is it just easier to say "it's mental health", but don't do anything about it because grabbers will abuse the system?

That data breach is bs. They should investigate and hold those responsible to account.
Click to expand...
We have to try. Ideally, responsible people would call out anyone who abuses the process and there should be stiff penalties for abuse.
 
jjacks93 said:
I bet if his parents had to face some type of repercussions over the shooting we’d have more parents paying attention to their f’d up kids
Click to expand...
100%

If this country put more focus on parenting, we’d be much better as a society. Yes, there are some bad or negligent parents out there... but if they came up with a slogan or some commercials or some creative strategy to promote the family dynamic (nuclear family) and marriage counseling, etc... it would at least be something.

Now that would be something to unite over!
 
NC_Canes_11 said:
Just don’t want people to get there hopes up. Your opinion does not matter to your Representative.
Click to expand...

Sorry to hear that

Guess I've been very lucky.

On occasion I've gotten a few canned responses but for the most part I've gotten responses specifically addressing whatever my letter brought up and my concerns. I always keep it clear, respectful, factual and without hyperbole.

Whenever I've gotten what was obviously a canned response I've still pushed on.

First of all, I accept the fact that my opinion WILL NOT ALWAYS prevail. I realize that they can't be at my beck and call and I also realize many of the responses I've received were written by staffers. But it's important to me that they are aware of my viewpoints and that they know I'm not alone in how I feel.

Believe it or not, your letters do have an impact. As most in Congress and their staff do keep track of how their constituents are responding to events . Some might not care due to partisanship, but that's the voters fault

I'm not ready to give up on our system of government. It's up to the citizenery to make it work.

I feel for you guys because if I ever reach the point that I've actually made every effort to be heard and yet feel as if I have absolutely no voice on how I'm governed...then really it's time to leave.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top