This could be the start of gun control......

Status
Not open for further replies.
I wish there would be some real studies and some real reporting on a common thread with these maniacs
http://www.wnd.com/2018/02/media-ignoring-1-crucial-factor-in-florida-school-shooting/

nearly 100% of mass murder/shooters have been on some form of drugs for mental health/depression/stress etc. I am not an MD, and I fully acknowledge that these medications help many people, but this is the one thing in common with these maniacs, they are all drugged up. they are clearly unstable and troubled people, but as a society we are failing if there is a TV commercial that tells you that X drug will make your life better, but if you have homicidal or suicidal ideas after taking X drug, you should stop taking it and contact your doctor.

how many people have some seriously bad reactions too these drugs? it is not talked about in the media, probably because of the money involved from various pharmaceutical companies.
 
CamaroDMD said:
The door is locked. I have yet to see a report of a shooter spending time trying to breech a locked door (but I admit I could be mistaken). Typically if they find a locked door...they move onto the next. Speed is the key.
Click to expand...
I saw a video from this one where the shooter stuck the gun through the window in the locked door and fired a whole bunch of shots into it. not sure if anyone was hit, really shaky as you can imagine, but the locked door prevented him from entering in this case but not necessarily from doing harm. I wish the teacher could have fired back, that would have helped for sure
 
z7 said:
I saw a video from this one where the shooter stuck the gun through the window in the locked door and fired a whole bunch of shots into it. not sure if anyone was hit, really shaky as you can imagine, but the locked door prevented him from entering in this case but not necessarily from doing harm. I wish the teacher could have fired back, that would have helped for sure
Click to expand...
Yes...fire back. Through a door with no line of sight...with God only knows who else in the corridor trying to flee. I don't know about you...but I have always been taught to know what I am shooting at before I fire a round.
 
z7 said:
I wish there would be some real studies and some real reporting on a common thread with these maniacs
http://www.wnd.com/2018/02/media-ignoring-1-crucial-factor-in-florida-school-shooting/

nearly 100% of mass murder/shooters have been on some form of drugs for mental health/depression/stress etc. I am not an MD, and I fully acknowledge that these medications help many people, but this is the one thing in common with these maniacs, they are all drugged up. they are clearly unstable and troubled people, but as a society we are failing if there is a TV commercial that tells you that X drug will make your life better, but if you have homicidal or suicidal ideas after taking X drug, you should stop taking it and contact your doctor.

how many people have some seriously bad reactions too these drugs? it is not talked about in the media, probably because of the money involved from various pharmaceutical companies.
Click to expand...
I'm not an "MD" but I am a healthcare provider with a doctorate and a DEA permit. I have never been able to understand...for the life of me...how it is legal for these drug companies to advertise Rx drugs on TV. It only encourages people to go to their doctor and try and twist their arm into prescribing. That's not right.
 
Speedo66 wrote:
This may be where it starts,...
Click to expand...

I doubt it.

In the wake of the Orlando shooting, Academy canceled contracts with AR providers and said they would stop selling ARs.

Which they did.

For a while.

Check out Academy's website today. They've got more than 120 different models of AR-15, AR-10, and AK style "modern sporting rifles".

If the governor and the lawmakers threatened by the one donor fail to respond by caving in to his demand, then it will be the donor who finds himself on the political outside dancing to a tune called by the legislators. The donor can put out the Press Release, but as the campaigns heat up this year, check the financial disclosure forms to see if he really did stop making contributions or if his Press Release was just public relations appeasement.
 
CamaroDMD said:
The door is locked. I have yet to see a report of a shooter spending time trying to breech a locked door (but I admit I could be mistaken). Typically if they find a locked door...they move onto the next. Speed is the key.
Click to expand...

It would seem you missed reports of plasterboard walls in some new schools, that are easily kicked in.
That plus a shot or two at the lock will open any door.
 
Merle1 said:
It would seem you missed reports of plasterboard walls in some new schools, that are easily kicked in.
That plus a shot or two at the lock will open any door.
Click to expand...
But this hasn't been happening. Unless a shooter has a specific target (and most don't)...they will follow the path of least resistance. They know they have to keep moving. Stopping to try and breech a door or break through a wall takes time and corners you. It gives time for targets in the open to escape.
 
CamaroDMD said:
Yes...fire back. Through a door with no line of sight...with God only knows who else in the corridor trying to flee. I don't know about you...but I have always been taught to know what I am shooting at before I fire a round.
Click to expand...
Correct, with an exception for gunfights. When given the choice to return fire or not you must asses the risk of both actions. I may be wrong in this situation, but I have been trained to return fire. I have zero issue with a person firing back through a door, when the bad guy started shooting first, or had been otherwise identified and is attempting entry. Don’t shoot if someone wiggles the handle, but if you have good reason to believe the gunman is trying to get it through visual or verbal cues, then by all means, drop thit hammer. You don’t need to wait for the bad guy to be in a clear line of sight in your room

Note: I am not advocating for random spray and pray, taking bad shots or neglecting to verify the target or the background, but if someone is shooting at me, or my class through a window in a door, I think shooting back is appropriate, even if you can’t see the bad guy
 
z7 said:
Correct, with an exception for gunfights. When given the choice to return fire or not you must asses the risk of both actions. I may be wrong in this situation, but I have been trained to return fire. I have zero issue with a person firing back through a door, when the bad guy started shooting first, or had been otherwise identified and is attempting entry. Don’t shoot if someone wiggles the handle, but if you have good reason to believe the gunman is trying to get it through visual or verbal cues, then by all means, drop thit hammer. You don’t need to wait for the bad guy to be in a clear line of sight in your room

Note: I am not advocating for random spray and pray, taking bad shots or neglecting to verify the target or the background, but if someone is shooting at me, or my class through a window in a door, I think shooting back is appropriate, even if you can’t see the bad guy
Click to expand...
You make a good point...and I don't completely disagree. In this scenario...shooting might be the best move. But...how often will this happen? Yes, it happened last week in that one room and thankfully nobody was hurt in that classroom. But, it seems like a very rare scenario to me.

I think putting that many guns on teachers in that many classrooms just to help combat this highly unlikely scenario is going to cause more problems than it's worth. How often will a student jump a teacher and take their weapon? How often will there be an accident of some kind? Yes, they are "concealed" but how hard is it to pick someone out with one...especially if you are looking. We all know it's not that hard.

I promise you...this will create more incidents than it prevents. When it does...it's going to be a problem for us...the gun owners. Dianne Feinstein, Nancy Pelosi and all their friends would like nothing more than for something like this to blow up in our faces. They will be there the minute it happens...to point the finger at us...the "irresponsible" gun owners who wanted guns in schools. They will say our plan didn't work so we should try theirs.

That is not an eventuality I want to face.
 
H.m.B said:
Fjotolf Hansen, who was responsible for the mass shooting in Norway in 2011 (69 shot, 8 killed by vehicle bomb) was 32 at the time. Age is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Most people know him by his original name of Anders Breivik. He used a Mini-14 and a Glock pistol, and he jumped through all of Norway's hoops to obtain them legally.
 
CamaroDMD said:
I think putting that many guns on teachers in that many classrooms just to help combat this highly unlikely scenario is going to cause more problems than it's worth. How often will a student jump a teacher and take their weapon? How often will there be an accident of some kind? Yes, they are "concealed" but how hard is it to pick someone out with one...especially if you are looking. We all know it's not that hard.
Click to expand...
Yes and no. I wouldn't just hand them out to all CCW holders. I think it should require additional legal and practical training up to the level of a licensed peace officer. I work at a small college with a full-time faculty of 60. Of those 60, I know of five (myself included) who would gladly take any training in order to be able to carry on campus. And there may be more that I don't know of.

As it is, we have a few criminal justice faculty who are permitted to carry on campus because they are licensed peace officers from a variety of agencies. There has never been an issue with any one of them as far as accidents or a student trying to take their weapon.
 
toivo said:
Yes and no. I wouldn't just hand them out to all CCW holders. I think it should require additional legal and practical training up to the level of a licensed peace officer. I work at a small college with a full-time faculty of 60. Of those 60, I know of five (myself included) who would gladly take any training in order to be able to carry on campus. And there may be more that I don't know of.

As it is, we have a few criminal justice faculty who are permitted to carry on campus because they are licensed peace officers from a variety of agencies. There has never been an issue with any one of them as far as accidents or a student trying to take their weapon.
Click to expand...
I think a high school is different than a college. For the most part, high school students are kids...not adults. Most college students have some choice to be in school...that's not really the case for high school (meaning...those who don't fit in aren't there in the same numbers). Also, maturity and decision making is greatly different. I think it's a totally different scenario.

I just think there will be a problem with high schoolers. I'd be afraid that one would take a firearm from a teacher...and then there would be a major problem.
 
bikerdoc said:
Crazy people control, not gun control.
Click to expand...

That's it right there, people control. Why would anyone care if I have an AR? I've had my background thoroughly checked by both the feds and the state. I have no criminal record and I haven't had any treatment for a mental illness. On the other hand, if someone has, they shouldn't be able to purchase a firearm......any firearm. The NCIC database has big holes in it. Lots of people who are know to be "crazy" by just about everyone who has come in contact with them waltz right through it. The reason is they don't have the mental health records that are protected by the fourth amendment.

So people want to abuse my second amendment rights so they don't have to abuse someones forth amendment rights. When people wake up to the fact there isn't any way to stop these mentally defectives until a system is put in place to prohibit them from buying or even possessing a firearm, we will continue seeing the mentally unstable shooters.

The solution is background checks for mentally unstable people. That means health records have to be made available to local LE and they have to be able to say yes or no when someone buys a gun. Of course one could always appeal a denial and a judge could decide but at least someone had some input about a persons mental state when they acquired a firearm.

I see tougher background checks on the horizon, probably by the state. The state can institute any background check they want, even to go so far as investigate the health care records an individual. All they would have to do is deny anyone who wouldn't consent to records request. That simple.

It's coming. Maybe not through congress but through state legislation. My state already processes handgun BC's and every transfer has to get a BC.

Banning firearms is last century. People need to be banned.
 
One analogy I have used successfully when I can find a rational liberal to discuss this with (which is not often), is to compare domestic mass murder with assault rifles to Radical Islamic terror attacks.

If we should register, restrict, and ban assault rifles based on their misuse by a handful of disturbed individuals, why would the same measures not apply to Muslims in the US?
Why should they not be registered, subjected to multiple layers of invasive government surveillance, and rounded up and arrested end masse due to actions of a few evil Jihadis?
Why should there not be "safe zones" where they are not permitted to move freely?
If no one "needs" an assault rifle, why does anyone "need" to practice Islam? Can they not just pick another religion as easily as you can just shoot some other kind of gun?
If the Founding Fathers did not foresee assault rifles when they crafted the 2nd Amendment to protect gun owners, surely they did not intend the 1st Amendment to protect Muslims in the face of Islamic terror?

The answer, of course, is that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are peaceful, contributing members of American society who have never hurt anyone, just as 99.999% of all AR15s will never be misused- and the best means of preventing both from harming innocent people is vigilance, detection, and proactive prevention by both law enforcement and those closest to the individuals preparing to enact these attacks and killings.

Just as the Islamic community must step up to disavow and purge the radical elements from their ranks if they wish to remain a part of America, so must we do a better job of cleaning our own house to detect, dissuade, and, if necessary, report those who would commit these crimes. From social media, to the workplace, and the gun ranges and dealers- we must be watchful and responsible, each a shepherd of our rights. Make no mistake, this IS a cultural civil war, and our enemy, the Socialist Secular Left is just as Dangerous to OUR way of life as Radical Islam.
 
CoalTrain49 said:
I haven't had any treatment for a mental illness. On the other hand, if someone has, they shouldn't be able to purchase a firearm......any firearm.
Click to expand...
CoalTrain49 said:
People need to be banned.
Click to expand...
Do you realize what you're saying? Or is this satire?
Someone might go to a psychiatrist for depression. He's given medicine, and he gets better. Should he be permanently excluded from possessing a firearm? (Besides that, psychiatry isn't an exact science. There are plenty of cases of misdiagnosis.)
If the word got out, no gun owner would ever again see a psychiatrist, and be saddled with a lifetime stigma. Actual illnesses would go untreated.
Where is the idea of due process, an opportunity for the individual to present his case, and an impartial decision by a judge?
It would be so easy to railroad people on the grounds of a purported "mental illness" and prevent them from owning a gun forever. This is something that would happen in the old Soviet Union (there, the "mentally ill" would be sent to the Siberian gulags). Not in America.
Note: Current law excludes from gun possession anyone who (a) ever has been adjudicated as a mental defective, or (b) ever has been committed (involuntarily) to a mental institution. (Question 11.f. on the Form 4473.) It seems like this has adequate safeguards. I'd be very leery of going any further.
 
I grew up in a time when the greatest threat while at school, besides fire, was that of a nuclear explosion; you were told to hide under your desk. I delivered pamphlets as a Boy Scout on how to build a fallout shelter. I was in fear when I looked up at the sky and saw contrails during the Cuban missile crisis. However, I was never worried about being shot while at school. No one wants to go to school in fear; I feel today’s children’s angst.

That said, the Left has a great propaganda machine for focusing these young minds on the weapon, not the perpetrator. The “something must be done” chant is more resonate when the emotion of tragedy is still felt. The NRA, the AR-15, and the lack of “common sense” gun controls are the cause of these heartbreaking events.

One of the worst things a firearms enthusiast can do is to bring logic to the table close to the event. Listen, but do nothing. Once the emotion is passed, an examination of what can be done to prevent such crimes from happening again, if anything, can be made. And it must be done in concert with the Constitution that protects our freedoms and our rights.
 
CoalTrain49 said:
That's it right there, people control. Why would anyone care if I have an AR? I've had my background thoroughly checked by both the feds and the state. I have no criminal record and I haven't had any treatment for a mental illness. On the other hand, if someone has, they shouldn't be able to purchase a firearm......any firearm. The NCIC database has big holes in it. Lots of people who are know to be "crazy" by just about everyone who has come in contact with them waltz right through it. The reason is they don't have the mental health records that are protected by the fourth amendment.

So people want to abuse my second amendment rights so they don't have to abuse someones forth amendment rights. When people wake up to the fact there isn't any way to stop these mentally defectives until a system is put in place to prohibit them from buying or even possessing a firearm, we will continue seeing the mentally unstable shooters.

The solution is background checks for mentally unstable people. That means health records have to be made available to local LE and they have to be able to say yes or no when someone buys a gun. Of course one could always appeal a denial and a judge could decide but at least someone had some input about a persons mental state when they acquired a firearm.

I see tougher background checks on the horizon, probably by the state. The state can institute any background check they want, even to go so far as investigate the health care records an individual. All they would have to do is deny anyone who wouldn't consent to records request. That simple.

It's coming. Maybe not through congress but through state legislation. My state already processes handgun BC's and every transfer has to get a BC.

Banning firearms is last century. People need to be banned.
Click to expand...

Tying the treatment of mental illness to the removal of a constitutional right would serve mainly to discourage unwell people from seeking treatment. The end result would be more sick people, and only the ones who remained sick (never sought treatment) would be able to buy guns. I don't see this being a desirable outcome.
 
we can keep using circular arguments about "people control" but as it stands we are not putting forth any arguments or proposals to help curb the issue. Should we "expand" the definition of who can or can't get a gun? No. But, should we be more proactive in identifying who those people are? And should they act out, shouldn't we support law enforcement stepping in and doing something about it BEFORE they go on a shooting rampage? Yes. And I think there are options for that, ones that will still allow due process.

But as it stands, one day or another, the political gerrymander that is using gun control as poison legislation is gonna stop and a real bill and a real conversation about what actions need to be taken to stop gun violence is gonna happen; history repeats itself, after all. Do we want ourselves and the NRA, GOA, etc. to just sit there and not participate in it again simply because we don't like the idea? Well, that is how everything up until 2004 happened in the gun climate in the first place: just being inactive, stubborn, and refusing to cooperate because "we know more, so why should we give them our time in listening to what they gotta say? Why bother educating them, it's not like they'll listen, etc. etc.". It doesn't help that the NRA and others have locked in their support base via fearmongering; it makes gun ownership look like a thing that only unreasonable, reactionary and insecure people take to - and I'd hate that to be the note we go out on as the conversation happens without our input.....again....like it had some six or seven times before.
 
Dave Dembinski said:
Tying the treatment of mental illness to the removal of a constitutional right would serve mainly to discourage unwell people from seeking treatment. The end result would be more sick people, and only the ones who remained sick (never sought treatment) would be able to buy guns. I don't see this being a desirable outcome.
Click to expand...
This is absolutely true. We need to destigmatize and encourage treatment. Not give them another reason to avoid it
 
AlexanderA said:
Do you realize what you're saying? Or is this satire?
Someone might go to a psychiatrist for depression. He's given medicine, and he gets better. Should he be permanently excluded from possessing a firearm? (Besides that, psychiatry isn't an exact science. There are plenty of cases of misdiagnosis.)
If the word got out, no gun owner would ever again see a psychiatrist, and be saddled with a lifetime stigma. Actual illnesses would go untreated.
Where is the idea of due process, an opportunity for the individual to present his case, and an impartial decision by a judge?
It would be so easy to railroad people on the grounds of a purported "mental illness" and prevent them from owning a gun forever. This is something that would happen in the old Soviet Union (there, the "mentally ill" would be sent to the Siberian gulags). Not in America.
Note: Current law excludes from gun possession anyone who (a) ever has been adjudicated as a mental defective, or (b) ever has been committed (involuntarily) to a mental institution. (Question 11.f. on the Form 4473.) It seems like this has adequate safeguards. I'd be very leery of going any further.
Click to expand...

Nope, not satire.

I specifically stated
Of course one could always appeal a denial and a judge could decide, but at least someone had some input about a persons mental state when they acquired a firearm.
Click to expand...

Keeping people from being shot at school isn't an exact science either. If it was we would have solved the problem after Columbine.

I have a feeling there are plenty of gun owners out there that need treatment that don't get it. As you admitted
Besides that, psychiatry isn't an exact science. There are plenty of cases of misdiagnosis
Click to expand...
So lets just roll with we don't know enough about the field of psychiatry to make a positive determination if a person should or shouldn't own a firearm. I'm not buying that for a second.

Weather you realize it not, you are making a case that the 4473 is sufficient to weed out people who have been adjudicated as a mental defective. I would have to ask you what happened in the case of Devin Kelley? In that case the military had some objection, based on the legal requirements of reporting a persons mental health records to the NCIC. Result, 26 people dead.

Adjudicated doesn't even begin to address the problem. Seung-Hui Cho was ordered by a judge to seek outpatient care after making suicidal remarks to his roommates. He was evaluated at Carilion-St. Alban's mental health facility. That helped, 32 people dead.

I could find something wrong with most any of these shootings. I could blame the FBI for sleeping on the job or I could blame NICS/NCIC, or I could blame not enough school security, or I could blame the lack of God in schools, or I could blame the lack of values and parenting. The bottom line is we have a serious crisis here and mental health seems to be the underlying factor. These shooters aren't normal. Any process that identifies that, like a review of health records in a BC is going to alert trained professionals to a problem before people die.

Maybe you should consider this.
http://www.search.org/files/pdf/Reporting_Mental_Health_Records_NICS_Index.pdf

I'm sorry you don't agree with my views. Normally I agree with just about everything you post.

Full disclosure. My wife worked as a mental health care professional with prescription authority. Me, I'm nobody. :D
 
Last edited:
CoalTrain49 said:
The solution is background checks for mentally unstable people. That means health records have to be made available to local LE and they have to be able to say yes or no when someone buys a gun. Of course one could always appeal a denial and a judge could decide but at least someone had some input about a persons mental state when they acquired a firearm.
Click to expand...
Once an allegation of "mental illness" had been made, it would be up to the accused to navigate the labyrinth of the legal and psychiatric professions to prove his fitness to own a gun. This doesn't seem fair, and it's generally not the way we do things here in America. ("Innocent until proven guilty.")

Maybe, based on what you say, we should just follow the example of some European countries and require a positive certification of sanity by a psychiatrist before you can get a gun. (Of course, no psychiatrist is going to stick his neck out and provide such a certification, knowing his legal liability if the gun is misused.)
 
theotherwaldo said:
Remember all of the veterans that were losing their Second Amendment rights if they asked for any kind of therapy?
Gun-banners can get proactive when it goes with their agenda.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Antigunners have learned that they can tackle the "gun problem" from two ends: the guns themselves, and the people who own the guns. They can keep adding category after category of people who are excluded from owning guns, and eventually so many people are excluded that it becomes almost moot to go after the guns themselves. OK, we've excluded felons, domestic abusers, drug users, people who have been dishonorably discharged from the armed forces, etc. The mental health arena is the next remaining place where potentially large numbers of people can be excluded. Nobody is going to stand up for "crazy people" any more than they stand up for "wife beaters." What the antis are doing is cleverly exploiting all of our social stigmas.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Speedo66
  • Locked
There Goes Ruger......
Replies
10
Views
900
Walkalong
Walkalong
Speedo66
  • Locked
If you can't get a gun......
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
Tirod
T
Speedo66
  • Locked
Donor Uprising at the NRA?
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
GEM
G
Speedo66
  • Locked
Quite a Conundrum-Open Carry at the Rupublican Convention
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
Ric
Ric
W
  • Locked
Gun Control Could Damage Democrats:Catching Fire From All Sides
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
Dorryn
D
Back
Top