Here We Go Again 1994 Redux

[D.B. Cooper]

I thought they were talking about the forward assist used to make sure the bolt is closed all the way.

That's a whole other can of worms.

 

[danmc]

There may be an unintended consequence to the policy of deinstitutionalization that our nation has engaged in. Is society better served by focusing on trying to prevent those who are truly sick and constantly interacting with society from acquiring firearms, or by making an effort to protect society from truly sick individuals, who are determined to cause pain to society, by institutionalizing them?

I'm not suggesting a return to the 1890's, but I wonder if there is a way to track mass shootings by year and the per capita mental institution population by year. As more and more of the population that would have been institutionalized was remanded to clinics, home care and half-way houses, did mass shootings increase? Were shooters taking, or had they been prescribed, anti-psychotic medications? Certainly, even if there is a correlation, it wouldn't prove causation, but it would be worth considering.

Will these proposed anti-civil rights laws actually result in fewer deaths, or just a change in the means of causing harm?

I think you are on to something here. I truly believe that our current system of “six counseling sessions per year “ does nothing for the truly disturbed. Me do not recognize mental illness well, nor do we treat it well.

 

[Walkalong]

We’ve wandered off topic, so

The AR is a different animal entirely. All rifles are not created equal.

It's just a rifle, one you are willing to give up, but for what in return? Nothing, as usual, as we never get anything in return when we lose something. Stop being afraid to fight to keep all firearms. Stop selling the if we just give up XYZ they'll stop and let us keep the rest of them BS.

 

[Poper]

a new law creates new crimes, which creates new criminals. New laws always cause more crime.

I see something elegantly profound in that statement.
It is something that needs to be stated often enough and loud enough that politicians can hear it.

 

[.455_Hunter]

Why then don't those "responsible" young adults get more active in self-policing their peer group? The typical pattern is that the weird outsiders (the potential mass shooters) get bullied, harassed, and shunned by their classmates. Then they lash back. If only someone had befriended the weirdo at the critical time....

I agree that degenerate weirdos may need more active management by society.

 

[Ironicaintit]

I agree that degenerate weirdos may need more active management by society.

You can't be serious.
Yes, let's have government create a new board, charged with weeding out, and counseling the weirdness out of our youth.

 

[.455_Hunter]

You can't be serious.
Yes, let's have government create a new board, charged with weeding out, and counseling the weirdness out of our youth.

I am talking about specific subset of people who have an established track record of threatening violence, torturing animals, etc. Very rarely does one of these things come out of the blue, and it's a pattern repeated in the majority of cases- the degenerate in Uvalde had a nickname of "school shooter" and nobody was surprised that he was the killer. I agree it's a slippery slope, but I would support a bit of more active prevention than slapping restrictions on all citizens with new gun laws.

 

[Basura Blanca]

They go for the whole enchilada and then "settle" for something like Red Dawn, I mean "Flag" laws,

Would red flag really be settling though? Red flag is a defacto anything weapon ban since it's essentially an arbitrary prohibited person category. That's much worse than a renewed AWB.

 

[Old Dog]

I am talking about specific subset of people who have an established track record of threatening violence, torturing animals, etc. Very rarely does one of these things come out of the blue, and it's a pattern repeated in the majority of cases- the degenerate in Uvalde had a nickname of "school shooter" and nobody was surprised that he was the killer.

But yet, at that time, he had made no overt moves to do harm to any humans.

Would red flag really be settling though? Red flag is a defacto anything weapon ban since it's essentially an arbitrary prohibited person category. That's much worse than a renewed AWB.

Obviously, the main issue with "red flag" laws is that you are giving (potentially dysfunctional) persons (possibly with bad motive(s)) the power to cause other citizens -- who have not yet committed a crime -- to be disarmed.

The secondary issue is the fact that red flag laws do not provide for due process.

Then there's the logical disconnect: with red flag legal proceedings, the person’s firearms may be seized, but the individual may be quickly released back into society, free to pursue whatever misdeeds they might choose to do.

The slippery slope would seem to be that some here are in favor of a "Department of Future Crime."

Part of living in a free society is that we respond only to another individual's (or group's) action(s) -- not to what we think they may do in the future.

 

[Hartkopf]

The problem with red flag laws is it opens up another avenue of corruption from possibly anyone such as a pissed off spouse, employee, employer or friend. Anyone of those (and many more) who wants to lie can have a person disarmed unfairly and indefinitely. It’s like lying to Child Protective Services about someone abusing a child, they will investigate.


There are exceptions of course. Specific, threatening social media posts by someone should be investigated but then context of the post needs to be understood before doors are broken down. It’s a slippery slope that our unfair opponents will capitalize on at every turn.

 

[Ignition Override]

I’ve wondered whether school districts- after the Columbine massacre- could have budgeted for a full-time staff psychologist or psychiatrist to gather intell from various sources, which normally seem to be too fragmented for any one person to see a kid’s Big Picture of danger.

There would probably be far too many disturbed kids to be monitored, difficulty in gathering quite disconnected indicators of potential Future Killer Robots ,

and too many legal barriers to force one or two to get “ adjudicated” , if initiated by a school district.

 

[MEHavey]

Notwithstanding all the Intel as might be gathered ...there are none so blink as will not see . . . .
Re Parkland

 

[Ironicaintit]

The problem with red flag laws is it opens up another avenue of corruption from possibly anyone such as a pissed off spouse, employee, employer or friend. Anyone of those (and many more) who wants to lie can have a person disarmed unfairly and indefinitely. It’s like lying to Child Protective Services about someone abusing a child, they will investigate.


There are exceptions of course. Specific, threatening social media posts by someone should be investigated but then context of the post needs to be understood before doors are broken down. It’s a slippery slope that our unfair opponents will capitalize on at every turn.

And then there's the whole silly due process thing

 

[Ironicaintit]

I will always stand by the premise that good guys should be enabled to respond with potentially deadly force.
I already trust my child's teacher (and the custodian, and tradesmen who work on the place) to not be nut jobs.
I'd feel a helluva lot better knowing that a meaningful defense is available to them (if they were so inclined)

 

[D.B. Cooper]

I’ve wondered whether school districts- after the Columbine massacre- could have budgeted for a full-time staff psychologist or psychiatrist

My local school district does. Well, not full time at each school, Each psychologist has 1-3 schools. 400-1800 schools each. But they're not only looking out for at risk youth and potential school shooters. They're also doing learning disability evaluations, trauma counseling, etc etc.

 

[General Geoff]

My local school district does. Well, not full time at each school, Each psychologist has 1-3 schools. 400-1800 schools each. But they're not only looking out for at risk youth and potential school shooters. They're also doing learning disability evaluations, trauma counseling, etc etc.

Yeah a psychologist could have a full schedule just dealing with a hundred kids, let alone a few thousand.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

Notwithstanding all the Intel as might be gathered ...there are none so blink as will not see . . . .
Re Parkland

One of the issues with the Parkland shooter was that principals were either afraid to, or restricted from, bringing in the police. There is a theory in education today that there is a "school to prison pipeline." The theory goes that students of color are suspended at a much higher rate than white students. Therefor, those students of color are more likely to be put into the juvenile justice system. Florida, or at least Broward country, had instituted a policy of not involving the police when criminal acts were committed by students on campus so as to interrupt that pipeline.

I've spoken with teachers over the years who have had kids threaten to beat them over petty classroom discipline issues, such as phones in the classroom. These kids rarely get more than a day of detention or an in-school suspension. As I understand it, there is tremendous pressure from upper echelons of district management to reduce the number and length of suspensions across the board.

So, obviously, as with Parkland, even if the school knows something, they're not likely to take definitive action. This is why it is vital to allow teachers to be armed. The state (in this case represented by the school district) flat out refuses to protect citizens (in this case represented by students and staff), which is truly a deep violation of the social contract between citizen and government, thus the citizen must be allowed to provide for his or her own self preservation.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

Yeah a psychologist could have a full schedule just dealing with a hundred kids, let alone a few thousand.

And let's not even talk about how well kids hide their emotions and their problems. It's entirely possible for at risk youth to slip completely under the radar until it's too late, and that's not necessarily the fault of any individual or group of individuals at the school. Unfortunately, it's not possible to assign responsibility to "the system."

 

[kwguy]

Here’s an interesting point. Not saying I’m for raising age limits, but, people usually know that something is “wrong” with some hypothetical 18 year old, locally. The school, friends, what have you. But at 18, a background check usually won’t turn up anything because one doesn’t even legally have much of a background to show up at such a young age. The older one gets, the more that can show up.

Just an observation.

 

[DMW1116]

The slippery slope would seem to be that some here are in favor of a "Department of Future Crime."

I have long held the belief that any weapon restricting law falls into this category. There are legitimate reasons for owning weapons. The only reason to restrict ownership for a law abiding individual is because of what they might do instead of what they did or tried to do.

 

[Hartkopf]

Here’s an interesting point. Not saying I’m for raising age limits, but, people usually know that something is “wrong” with some hypothetical 18 year old, locally. The school, friends, what have you. But at 18, a background check usually won’t turn up anything because one doesn’t even legally have much of a background to show up at such a young age. The older one gets, the more that can show up.

Just an observation.

You have a point except that I wanted my 18 year old armed because of the threats from another 18 year old who already had two guns obtained without a background check. He actually had the guns since he was 16 so in this case, the law and age limits were only going endanger my kid.

 

[Hartkopf]

And here we go with more sensational front page headlines trying to make more soccer moms terrified of evil guns.


We had these headlines of mass shootings in Austin when it turned out being rival gangs and only 2 or 3 gang members were killed. Nice that Fox plays into the BS.

This incident had “multiple shooters” with “handguns” so at least the evil weapons of war were not responsible. Also, the night before, Philadelphia had 9 separate shooting incidents! Sounds like they have a Chicago style problem, not a mass shooting problem.

 

[kwguy]

You have a point except that I wanted my 18 year old armed because of the threats from another 18 year old who already had two guns obtained without a background check. He actually had the guns since he was 16 so in this case, the law and age limits were only going endanger my kid.

Oh, I totally get it. I was just observing a limit of the much vaunted “but he passed a background check.” Youngsters have no background usually. That doesn’t negate the need for self defense though.

 

[kwguy]

And here we go with more sensational front page headlines trying to make more soccer moms terrified of evil guns.

View attachment 1082497
We had these headlines of mass shootings in Austin when it turned out being rival gangs and only 2 or 3 gang members were killed. Nice that Fox plays into the BS.

This incident had “multiple shooters” with “handguns” so at least the evil weapons of war were not responsible. Also, the night before, Philadelphia had 9 separate shooting incidents! Sounds like they have a Chicago style problem, not a mass shooting problem.

True. None of the media is helpful. Even Fox isn’t pro 2A. They are just more subtle about it. Remember, the Chicago style gangbang stuff is why we got the legislation back in 1934.

Media stoking anti gun fires is every bit as dangerous as the politicians who wish to legislate them out of our hands.

 

[AlexanderA]

It's just a rifle, one you are willing to give up, but for what in return?

I'm certainly not willing to give up my ARs. And I have quite a few, beginning with the first one that I bought in 1968.

The issue here is breaking the linkage between ARs, etc., and the mentally disturbed.

What makes this so complicated is that almost all mass shooters are not clinically insane. They could not have been institutionally committed prior to their acts. So how do we weed them out with some kind of objective criteria? Age is an easy fallback. The cerebral cortex has settled into an "adult" (responsible) state by age 25 (in most people). Many people obviously reach maturity earlier, but how do we identify them?