Another mass shooting in America

[fps]

Dont be so blind.

In what sense am I being blind? That's saying *1 dead, 20 dead, what's the difference?* It's an appalling thing to say.

 

[flint757]

I would just like to say that I hate the fact that gun control seems to be at the forefront of the issues here.

It seems like every time something like this happens the culprit is the same person. A young, intelligent, socially awkward and distant person with some signs of mental issues.

How we handle mental health should be the issue. I have a cousin with mania. Needless to say when he goes off on his tangents, he goes OFF. Threats to kill his father, beating the shit out of people, and basically inhuman strength when he is on a rage. It took like five cops during one incident to bring him down. Unfortunately since he is an adult he gets to decide how his condition is handled which means he is out on his own doing as he pleases. We think with him it's not a matter of if but more a matter of what and when and it is really out of our control. Our whole family pretty much fears him but there's nothing we can do to keep him in the treatment he needs.

Addressing the mental health of our citizens and how we handle those with issues is what I think can be the most preventative action we can take against these kinds of things.

Clearly, in this instance specifically, they should make it into law that if you get arrested for having a mental breakdown that you can be institutionalized at least temporarily. I honestly thought that was already the case. If it is and it still didn't happen then that means either the family or the police dropped the charges. That makes it a far more complicated problem.

 

[texshred777]

To get someone admitted into an institution(here) it usually happens like this.

Police/MHMR/other figures are notified of a subject having a mental issue that endangers themselves or others. They make contact with said person, and if there isn't any evidence of such an event/scenario and the subject denies the allegation they are let go. In the event of either proof or confession an MHMR professional contacts a judge for a mental health committment order warrant.

source: I deal with these situations every day. Again, these are standard procedures in Texas. Even other agencies in Texas may have a different protocol, but the fact is in a forced detainment there has to be a warrant signed by a judge at the request of mental health professionals.

What can we do with resources and already existing infrastructure?
Police agencies should pursue the criminal charge(assuming there was a criminal act) that got everything started. If the call started as a disturbance, they should make an arrest for a charge they can resonably make. Whether it's assault(either from physical contact or threats), disorderly conduct, etc.

If they don't pursue the charge the only record is in the local database and not subject to criminal history background checks. The only way to even know about it is to contact the agency and fill out an open records request.

The downside is that people will have a criminal history in addition to the mental issues they already suffer from. They will have greater difficulties in finding employment and that won't likely help them in the long run.

 

[bigchocolateman]

Certainly one of the smarter points in this debate and it's been put out there a few times but I haven't heard a single 'nut and bolts' recommendation on how you address this...?

As is your case, how do you get help for somebody who doesn't want it? A lot of talk about the 'assault on liberty' that gun laws would be... what about involuntarily committing everyone who exhibits signs of mental disease?

In my cousins case, if the medication is right and taken as it is supposed to be he can be in society and function normally. There was a period of about 6 months where his meds were being taken and he was fine. Unfortunately he began drinking again and I believe it messed up his treatment and he is back to his manic issues.

I think the best thing for someone like him is to give them the equivalent of a parole officer. Someone he has to check into daily and make sure he continues to take his meds and to just check. Daily might be a little unrealistic but at least weekly to make sure he hasn't stopped taking meds and is still doing well. If they fail to report then they should be tracked down and evaluated. If they don't pass the evaluation, should be kept in a mental facility without say in the matter if they are deemed a threat.

But you are right, it would be very hard to detain these people in these situations and the question of liberty for these people would be a huge debate.

 

[flint757]

There is no solution that will work 100% of the time. If they quit their med's how will the parole officer even know? The one benefit is said person may notice that they seem different. In my experience it is really hard for bipolar people, as an example, to hide when they aren't normal.

Even then very tricky without somebody out there complaining.

 

[ST3MOCON]

It's not a right, it's a privilege. That is notable simply by the fact that to carry certain weapons requires certain paperwork, licensing, etc. and you can't legally buy ANYTHING you want either. It is just like driving, which is also a privilege, not a right. Yet I don't see people like you yelling in the street that someone is being denied their license to drive either (well AARP might be ).

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Second Amendment | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

It is a right. Just because our governemnt has chipped away at it does not make it anything else.

Also nowhere in the BILL OF RIGHTS does it say anything about a drivers license.

 

[flint757]

Because the constitution is written in stone and has never, ever been altered, right? I notice a lot of founder worship from people in general. They did not have all the answers and were not 100% right. Yes, currently speaking anyone can own a gun of some sort. Even in more strict states you can still buy a shotgun, but that doesn't make it any more a right from a society POV. If you'd like to take the constitution literally then I suggest that the laws be amended so that gun owners can only own weapons that existed when it was written, you know since a piece of paper can't predict the future. In any case, it starts out quite nicely with well regulated too, but I guess that means nothing as well.

The bill of rights actually have been altered after the 14th amendment: due process clause was ratified so they are not set in stone or beyond repair.

The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. These limitations serve to protect the natural rights of liberty and property. They guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public. While originally the amendments applied only to the federal government, most of their provisions have since been held to apply to the states by way of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The amendments were introduced by James Madison to the 1st United States Congress as a series of legislative articles. They were adopted by the House of Representatives on August 21, 1789, formally proposed by joint resolution of Congress on September 25, 1789, and came into effect as Constitutional Amendments on December 15, 1791, through the process of ratification by three-fourths of the States. While twelve amendments were proposed by Congress, only ten were originally ratified by the states. Of the remaining two, one was adopted 203 years later as the Twenty-seventh Amendment and the other technically remains pending before the states.

Originally, the Bill of Rights implicitly legally protected only white men, excluding American Indians, people considered to be "black" (now described as African Americans), and women. These exclusions were not explicit in the Bill of Rights' text, but were well understood and applied.
The Bill of Rights plays a key role in American law and government, and remains a vital symbol of the freedoms and culture of the nation. One of the first fourteen copies of the Bill of Rights is on public display at the National Archives in Washington, D.C.

Good thing we don't look at the Constitution through the same lense of that time otherwise minorities and women would be screwed.



The point I was making about drivers licenses was the fact that people have a far greater need/use for driving than a use for a gun (I'd argue most people have no need), yet I hear more bitching from the gun subset than those who are denied a drivers license for whatever reason. It was a singular example, I could have easily chosen something else.

It’s my constitutional right.

“There’s nothing we can do! It’s in the Constitution.” It’s a shrewd move, because it places blame for the American gun problem on the founders, instead of on the people furthering the problem now. But that’s a broken argument too.

That something is (possibly) enshrined in the Constitution does not mean it is invincible to change. Let’s not forget that abortion is a constitutionally protected right, eh? We’re still allowed to argue about that.

The Constitution is good at stuff like this. We’ve amended the thing 27 times, to fix the issues our founding fathers, in all their 18th-century wisdom, fucked up beyond comprehension. Women couldn’t vote, black people were 3/5ths of a person (and couldn’t vote), presidents could be reelected in perpetuity. Hell, the path of presidential succession wasn’t codified until 1965, after we needed it a bunch of times. (Mostly after angry people killed our presidents… with guns.)

And when an amendment like the 18th comes along and takes away our beer, we have the power to bring along an amendment like the 21st, which gives it back. Because one thing the Constitution does get right is the opening line: “We, the People.” Like Charles Pierce wrote Friday, our commitment to each other is the driving force behind our self-government, and when self-government stands by and watches Americans shoot each other in the face, we have failed each other.

So no, the constitutional argument against gun control is not good enough. We have a commitment to society that is above blind faith in 220-year-old dogma. We took away slavery. We can regulate guns. Providing for the common defense doesn’t only apply to drone-striking terrorists, and if we can repeal the 18th Amendment, we, the people, can certainly temper the bloody effects of the Second.

Some people will die, if their guns are taken away and they can’t defend themselves. But how many people would be saved? If taking away guns from the public makes gun deaths go down overall — and it would — how would someone argue against it? That it violates an American ideal, a notion that people should have that line of personal defense? It’s not good enough, if people are dying, senselessly, every day, to preserve that right. If “making sure less people die” is not preserving the general welfare, that section of the Preamble means nothing.

http://wonkette.com/493036/earnest-wonkette-think-piece-here

 

[Grand Moff Tim]

Whether the Constitution is set in stone or not is irrelevant. If it currently says it's a right, then that's what it is: A right. Should its not being set in stone ever be used to change it so that it doesn't say it's a right or explicitly says it isn't one, then it won't be one. However, that hasn't happened yet, and we can't use the possibility that it might happen to say that it isn't a right.

 

[flint757]

I'll concede there, but to use it in this debate is rather pointless because it doesn't make the use or ownership in and of itself right in any other sense of the word nor is the second amendment even kind of specific about what it justifies as okay and not okay. It offers no scope at all actually. As such it is still up for debate. Hell, abortion is protected by the constitution and yet we still haven't shut up about that.

It's not like:

"Post second amendment"

This is why....

<end of discussion>

Which is how a lot of the people who bring up the constitution tend to use it as. Since the constitution can and has been amended, it most definitely still warrants discussion.

 

[Grand Moff Tim]

It deffo warrants discussion, yeah. I think it's high time the vagueness of it was sorted out, and end the squabbling about it once and for all.

Though it has birthed some amusing exchanges...

 

[fps]

Whether the Constitution is set in stone or not is irrelevant. If it currently says it's a right, then that's what it is: A right. Should its not being set in stone ever be used to change it so that it doesn't say it's a right or explicitly says it isn't one, then it won't be one. However, that hasn't happened yet, and we can't use the possibility that it might happen to say that it isn't a right.

Shouldn't automatic weapons also be available then? Also, since it's a right, should there really be any paperwork at all involved in owning one? The constitution isn't the bible, you can change the story if you want to.

 

[Grand Moff Tim]

Shouldn't automatic weapons also be available then?

I'm not sure how you'd jump to that conclusion. Given the above-mentioned vagueness of the phrasing used in the Constitution, we don't have any set-in-stone idea of what specific "arms" we have the right to bear, just that we have the right to bear them, whatever it's decided they are. People can (and do) argue that it means we can bear anything we want, including automatic weapons, flame throwers, and other dastardly goodies. Other can (and do) argue that the arms we have the right to bear should be limited to those that actually have a utilitarian purpose, such as hunting rifles and target-shooting pistols.

Until further amendments appear that strictly delineate what exactly we have the right to bear, though, people will continue to argue about it. What can't be argued is that we have a right to bear something, though I still don't see the logical bridge between "if you think you have the right to bear arms, then you must therefore think you have the right to bear automatic weapons" you seem to be seeing.

Also, since it's a right, should there really be any paperwork at all involved in owning one?

Why shouldn't there be? I'm no expert on Constitutional Rights, I'm willing to concede, but if there's a law stating that no paperwork whatsoever is to be used in the process of applying them, I've never heard about it. Adding paperwork to the mix isn't stripping the right, after all, it's organizing and codifying it.

The constitution isn't the bible, you can change the story if you want to.

Too true, and a fact many people often seem to forget at their own convenience. However, it really has no bearing on anything else in this post, so I'm not sure why you included it. I can legally change my name to Fluffenpants McDicksniffer in the future, but that doesn't mean my name right now isn't Tim. The Constitution can be legally changed in the future to say that we don't have the right to bear arms, or that the arms we've the right to bear are limited in scope, but that doesn't mean that the Constution doesn't say right now that we have the right to bear arms.

 

[Pablo]

With all said and done, in the USA 84 people lose their lives every day from gun inflicted wounds... in my book that rates as unacceptable.
Moreover, if I were a US citizen, I would demand that those representing me in government did something to actively remedy this outrageous situation.

Regardless of political stance, ideology, race, colour or creed it should be fairly obvious that the logical solution to gun violence is to get rid of guns. Whether other types of violence would flurish in the aftermath is, frankly, acedemic until we get there.

Moreover, I love it when a 200 year old document is thrown around as a contemporary argument for, well anything really! Why not reintroduce witch trials? They seemed like a jolly good idea at the time - hence they must still hold merrit today! Moreover, the last witch excecution in Europe took place about the time of the US constitution... In short: Any historic data should be seen through the proper historic perspective.

Case in point: the 2nd ammendment had both purpose and meaning in 1791 - through the proper historic lense, it is fairly obvoius that the sole purpose of the 2nd ammendment was to establish an armed militia (as in a government sanctionned militia - not paranoid rednecks) to protect the newly formed state and constitution. The 2nd ammendment has in essence been abused for everything but its intended purpose ever since...

Cheers

Eske

 

[Randy]

I'm not sure how you'd jump to that conclusion. Given the above-mentioned vagueness of the phrasing used in the Constitution, we don't have any set-in-stone idea of what specific "arms" we have the right to bear, just that we have the right to bear them, whatever it's decided they are. People can (and do) argue that it means we can bear anything we want, including automatic weapons, flame throwers, and other dastardly goodies. Other can (and do) argue that the arms we have the right to bear should be limited to those that actually have a utilitarian purpose, such as hunting rifles and target-shooting pistols.

Until further amendments appear that strictly delineate what exactly we have the right to bear, though, people will continue to argue about it. What can't be argued is that we have a right to bear something, though I still don't see the logical bridge between "if you think you have the right to bear arms, then you must therefore think you have the right to bear automatic weapons" you seem to be seeing.

I believe that was in response to the picture you posted above. The implication is that there are no specifics on what weapons you "have a right to bear" not because the framers didn't have foresight to expect weapons would evolve, but because they wanted the "people" to be able to arm themselves with weapons equivalent to those of the people they're fighting. If some people out there have full-automatic weapons, than this fundamentalist interpretation of the Constitution implies that we should also be allowed to use fully-automatic weapons; yet they're still illegal at the state and federal levels.

His point is valid and you're being deliberately obtuse.

To those arguing that, just because it's in the Consitution, it should remain unaltered or remain interpreted solely in the context it was originally written, maybe we've forgotten these little gems from our past:

Article I, Section. 2 [Slaves count as 3/5 persons]
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons

Article I, Section. 9, clause 1. [No power to ban slavery until 1808]
The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

Article IV, Section. 2. [Free states cannot protect slaves]
No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Article V [No Constitutional Amendment to Ban Slavery Until 1808]
...No Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article.

The Thirteenth Amendment: Slavery and the Constitution

So the founding fathers didn't get it all right.

 

[Grand Moff Tim]

I believe that was in response to the picture you posted above.

Perhaps it was unclear when I posted it, but I was only posting that picture as an example of the amusing discussions that have arisen as a result of the fact that the 2nd Amendment is so vague, not as an example of how I actually feel on the matter. He didn't include the picture in the snippet he quoted, so I assumed he was responding to what I had said, not was Piers Morgan and whoever that woman is had said in the picture. I thought I was being clear in pointing out that I think it's too vague and that something needs to be done about that, but apparently I wasn't.

His point is valid and you're being deliberately obtuse.

It isn't, and I wasn't.

Rather, it isn't if he was addressing what I said and not the picture that I posted, and I definitely wasn't being deliberately obtuse. In fact, I thought he was being deliberately obtuse in responding the way he did, not thinking that he was responding to the picture (which he didn't quote) and not my actual words (which he did). Frankly, I'm a little disappointed that anyone would conclude that I was being deliberately obtuse, since the only two modes I've tried to demonstrate in this subforum are straightforward honesty and sarcasm, and I'm more than a little disappointed that you in particular would have come to that conclusion, but I suppose that's neither here nor there.

To those arguing that, just because it's in the Consitution, it should remain unaltered or remain interpreted solely in the context it was originally written, maybe we've forgotten these little gems from our past:

Just in case it seemed like that's what I was arguing (and honestly, at this point it appears I can't assume I know what people think I'm arguing), that's not what I think at all.

 

[Randy]

Arguing solely on the semantics of "a right" (one which already comes with a mountain of restrictions, much like the "freedom of speech" which doesn't protect you from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater) is seemingly pointless.

Assuming you were chiming in based on flint's post mentioning gun ownership as more of a "privilege than a right" (contextually, that's what it looks like), it's a valid point but tone deaf. Yes, on the issue of semantics, the beginning of the Constitution is the "Bill of Rights". To that end, you're right.

However, because the Constitution doesn't include or exclude certain weapons, what's allowed and not allowed is defined by law. The "privilege" lies in what guns you're allowed to own, who's allowed to carry them and where. Felons and mentally ill can't legally own them, people on parole for violent crime can't own them (or any crime, in a lot of cases), you can't carry a gun with you into a lot of places (last I knew, NYC has a ban on CCW or open carry, plus you're not allowed to bring a gun into a lot of public/government buildings [court, etc.]), you can't own a bazooka with ammunition, you can't own an uzi, you can't build a pipebomb, etc.). By the time it's said and done, the Constitution could still read "right to bear arms" and that could be restricted down to muskets, with that hollow definition of "a right" still intact.

I found your response to be obtuse because you're clearly smart enough to know what fps was inferring, yet you chose to stick directly to the strict definition of "a right" and used your sarcasm to imply you "had no idea what he's talking about".

 

[ghostred7]

The firearms are already in circulation, changing the laws now won't do anything but affect law-abiding citizens. We need to bring more reform to mental health care. The root of the problem is the people committing the crime, not the tools they use to do it.

Someone posted a link that shows mass-killing timelines...how about the stories that don't get national media attention? This page (although biased I'm sure) has gatherings of various articles/places where citizens SAVED lives or defended themselves b/c of their legally having a firearm: Keep and Bear Arms - Gun Owners Home Page - 2nd Amendment Supporters

As for violent crimes? Someone keeps bringing up how the UK doesn't have weapons so no gun crime, etc.....how about violence in general? The UK was among the highest in violent crimes recently (2009...taking article and stats at face value).
The most violent country in Europe: Britain is also worse than South Africa and U.S. | Mail Online

As for having vs. not having...Colorado theater, Columbine, Newtown, Malls, etc....all = gun-free zone (per posting on signs)....seems to me the badguys here are going places where they believe no one will be able to protect themselves.

In the end, I still believe we need to work on mental health issues and fix the cause of these tragedies instead of attacking the tools used to carry them out....taking those away still leaves the crazy.

Except for the last line of her arguement....although another tragic story, it does paint a good "what-if" picture (from the 80s Brady Bill hearings).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgrIsuO5PLc

 

[vstealth]

There are people with mental health problems everywhere, guns however are not easily acquirable everywhere. There have been a fair few incidents recently where I live in the city with taxi drivers being bashed, people getting knocked out outside of clubs etc. As isolated and small in number as these incidents are, I cant even imagine how bad alot of these incidents would be if guns were as easily accessible as they are in the USA. No one doubts that the people that commit these shooting massacres in America have mental health problems, the problem is that they have access to firearms which nearly every other mentally disturbed person around the world does not have access to.

 

[Randy]

The firearms are already in circulation, changing the laws now won't do anything but affect law-abiding citizens. We need to bring more reform to mental health care.

In the end, I still believe we need to work on mental health issues and fix the cause of these tragedies instead of attacking the tools used to carry them out....taking those away still leaves the crazy.

So then you oppose any restrictions on who can own a gun, what kind of guns they're allowed to own and where they're allowed to bring them? Hand grenades? High caliber, fully automatic weapons? Since you're joining this discussion, I'd like some more depth on your perspective than just the talking point.

I argue that the effectiveness of certain weapons at killing large amounts of people in short periods of time make them dangerous by nature. Assuming people slip through the cracks of "mental illness", I personally find some value in making it more difficult for those people to get their hands on weapons.

As has been stated by anyone with a brain, this isn't about an 'all out ban on guns'. If you think there's any one person who shouldn't be allowed to own a gun or any type of gun that you don't think a person should be allowed to own, then you're for some kind of gun control and you acknowledge "what weapon and who has it" has some value. If you don't, that fine to. Your opinion. I'm just curious.

As for having vs. not having...Colorado theater, Columbine, Newtown, Malls, etc....all = gun-free zone (per posting on signs)....seems to me the badguys here are going places where they believe no one will be able to protect themselves.

Fort Hood shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, with the exception of the Colorado theater, all the shooters you mentioned either killed themselves or put themselves in a "stand off" position, knowing they were going to be killed. That method doesn't lead me to believe the fear of anyone else being armed bothered them much.

How do you suppose we address the mental health issue, in an effective, measurable way?

 

[ghostred7]

So then you oppose any restrictions on who can own a gun, what kind of guns they're allowed to own and where they're allowed to bring them?
*snip*

Fort Hood shooting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How do you suppose we address the mental health issue, in an effective, measurable way?

Nope....never said I oppose restrictions....we already have those in place. I oppose lack of target at the real root cause of these issues....which said root cause is that these ppl are loony.

Ft. Hood shooting....not sure why you brought that up...that still VERY much fits the "gun-free zone." I'm not sure how many military bases you've been on, but I know when I was active duty...you were supposed to keep even KNIVES in the arms room and have special permission to even own a weapon (in the barracks). The entire military base is a gun-free zone unless doing a unit activity that specifically involves that (gunnery, qualification, etc). Hasan may have been a shrink...but even shrinks can be crazy...sometimes the most dangerous kind.

Also, with the exception of the Colorado theater, all the shooters you mentioned either killed themselves or put themselves in a "stand off" position, knowing they were going to be killed. That method doesn't lead me to believe the fear of anyone else being armed bothered them much.

I don't see it that way....knowing in advance that there's reduced likelihood of someone being in the area to protect themselves b/c the follow the law allows pussies like the theater shooter to get in that position in the 1st place. The knowledge of citizens following the laws/signs allows them to capitalize on the situation

As for suggestions....I'd be all about FREE mental health screenings for our country and not opposed to one being require for legally purchasing of firearms.