Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

FTFY posts are so 2010. Gawd.

XuQishi wrote:
Thanks for the info, that was helpful.
Gangs aren't much of a thing here and the few that exist tend to - if at all - kill mostly each other and then mostly with knives, which is their problem, not anybody else's.

Don't sweat it; gangs are very common in the United States, but very poorly understood by most people outside of their spheres. Unfortunately, gang violence rarely stays neatly contained and, even if it does, it is still an enormous human cost.

Probably the best recent stuudy we have on childhood firearm fatalities is based on a CDC study of the years 2002-2014 published in Pediatrics in 2017 http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/06/15/peds.2016-3486
Alot of child injury/death cases are related to intimate partner violence or being caught in a separate criminal incident. Suicides are also a growing problem. Interestingly, the rates of firearm homicides are higher in many Southern and Midwestern states, some of the same areas where firearm ownership is highest. Playing with firearms is the leading cause of unintentional gun deaths.

Perhaps the most disturbing finding was that firearms are the 3rd leading cause of death overall among US children aged 1 to 17 years, and the 2nd leading cause of injury, second only to automobiles. International studies indicate that 91% of firearm deaths of children aged 0 to 14 years among all high-income countries worldwide occur in the United States. Approximately 19 children a day die or are medically treated in an ED for a gunshot wound in the United States That's shockingly bad.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Togusa wrote:
Until we get serious about Mental Health in the US, this will continue.

What can you do though? This kid even had treatment and it didn't help him. I guess you could make the treatment mandatory kind of like prison - I don't know how well that would go over though.

News this morning had him shooting at the neighbors chickens, torturing animals etc. Thats classic serial killer behavior.
I wonder if some of these guys would have become serial killers but went the mass shooter route.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Steve steveson wrote:
It's very difficult to say it didn't help. One of the major issues around mental health is that doctors and health officials struggle to deal with the fact that one size does not fit all.

I don't know for sure in the US, but in the UK it is a major issue. If I break my leg the same treatment will work for me as it will for you. It will also work for my brother, the homeless person sleeps rough in the car park behind my office, Bill Gates, Samuel L Jackson, Brigitte Bardot and the woman at the local McDonalds.

Mental Health is rather more difficult. What works for my OCD and related issues may not work for another person with OCD, or another mental health problem.

Also, if I break my leg you can tell what it is. Mental health conditions are far more complex to identify. Then you need to add in to it that one of the problems with mental health issues is that people often don't want to be treated, or struggle with treatment, for a variety of reasons. Feeling hopeless, because of the illness, so see it as pointless, disorganisation due to the illness (difficulty sequencing, or having the energy). The side effects of the treatments. The fact that the improvements are not visible.

I am on some sites with a lot of LEO commenters. I queried them once and they universally said they routinely deal with mentally ill at least once a day up to like 50% of the time (depending on the poster). It was both enlightening and terrifying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

No. When the US tolerated 20 dead kindergartners with no significant changes is when we decided as a nation we're OK with this.

Well since Sunderland at church we unofficially have at least one armed usher/other around for every service.
The schools here have been hardened up. all of them install bullet proof glass, and there's always at least on PoPo car sitting in the park behind the three schools or cruising the main drag in front of the three schools.

I'm actually more concerned about UT. I've never seen a PoPo there and homeless roam around annoying or occasionally robbing/murdering students.

sirlynchmob wrote:

And as we're discussing this one, yet another mass shooting at a school just took place.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4030124/washington-state-highline-college-gunfire/?utm_source=AM980London&utm_medium=Facebook

Nope.

 feeder wrote:
What about a law that prevents people from storing a gun in the same residence as someone who is barred from owing one? So if your severely unwell adult son is living in your home, you need to store your gun somewhere else?

Current Federal law only bans gun ownership to people who have "been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution" that's question f. on ATF form 4473. If you want to extend that to an adult that is "severely unwell" you'd have to legally define "severely unwell." I'm not sure treating mentally unwell people like convicted felons is going to help resolve our mental health issues as a nation.

Evidently police were called to his home 29 times in 7 years.
https://nypost.com/2018/02/16/deputies-called-to-suspected-shooters-home-39-times-over-seven-years/

 Frazzled wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:
It's pointless to post school shooting threads to a discussion forum where discussion of US politics is banned, because no discussion is then possible. All you could post is variations of "that's bad".

Yes, this is true.

 Easy E wrote:
Can anyone think of a nightmare scenario that would change the game on this topic?

No. When the US tolerated 20 dead kindergartners with no significant changes is when gun owners and the NRA decided as a nation we're OK with this.

fixed that for you. The nation is not ok with it, just a certain 1/2 seems to be ok with it and fight against measures to fix it.

And as we're discussing this one, yet another mass shooting at a school just took place.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4030124/washington-state-highline-college-gunfire/?utm_source=AM980London&utm_medium=Facebook

What is your proposal? This is not a criticism but a question.

IMO drastic times call for drastic measures, put a halt on the sale of guns and ammunition while the second amendment is reworked or revoked. We need national gun laws, and treat guns like cars. registered, and licensed and insured. Disband the NRA and confiscate their assets and the profits from gun manufacturers to pay for the medical treatments of victims. like we did with big tobacco. the price in lives is to damn high so some people can own guns and falsely belief they're now safe. Because those with guns are still far more likely to use them on themselves or family members than to have it anywhere near a crime, let alone stop one.

Don't reply with the nonsense of if you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns, because as it is now the outlaws have all the guns they want, no questions asked and there has yet to be any good guys with guns stopping any of the shootings.

*please don't ban me but this is highly on topic here*


this madness needs to stop, and the NRA and their paid puppets in Washington need to stop using these tragedies as commercials. More tragedies equates directly to more gun sales, and more guns leads to more tragedies. Ask yourself, is having a gun in your house worth the lives of these children and the thousands more who will die this year?

IMO no, #repealthesecond yes you have the right to defend yourself, but in exercising that right you are enabling these tragedies and if you are a member of the NRA you are directly responsible for them. The NRA is all about gun sales these days, no matter who they're sold to.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-statement-on-the-shooting-in-parkland-florida/layout_view

FBI Statement on the Shooting in Parkland, Florida
On January 5, 2018, a person close to Nikolas Cruz contacted the FBI’s Public Access Line (PAL) tipline to report concerns about him. The caller provided information about Cruz’s gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting.

Under established protocols, the information provided by the caller should have been assessed as a potential threat to life. The information then should have been forwarded to the FBI Miami Field Office, where appropriate investigative steps would have been taken.

We have determined that these protocols were not followed for the information received by the PAL on January 5. The information was not provided to the Miami Field Office, and no further investigation was conducted at that time.

FBI Director Christopher Wray said:

“We are still investigating the facts. I am committed to getting to the bottom of what happened in this particular matter, as well as reviewing our processes for responding to information that we receive from the public. It’s up to all Americans to be vigilant, and when members of the public contact us with concerns, we must act properly and quickly.

“We have spoken with victims and families, and deeply regret the additional pain this causes all those affected by this horrific tragedy. All of the men and women of the FBI are dedicated to keeping the American people safe, and are relentlessly committed to improving all that we do and how we do it.”

Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:
It's pointless to post school shooting threads to a discussion forum where discussion of US politics is banned, because no discussion is then possible. All you could post is variations of "that's bad".

Yes, this is true.

 Easy E wrote:
Can anyone think of a nightmare scenario that would change the game on this topic?

No. When the US tolerated 20 dead kindergartners with no significant changes is when gun owners and the NRA decided as a nation we're OK with this.

fixed that for you. The nation is not ok with it, just a certain 1/2 seems to be ok with it and fight against measures to fix it.

And as we're discussing this one, yet another mass shooting at a school just took place.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4030124/washington-state-highline-college-gunfire/?utm_source=AM980London&utm_medium=Facebook

What is your proposal? This is not a criticism but a question.

IMO drastic times call for drastic measures, put a halt on the sale of guns and ammunition while the second amendment is reworked or revoked. We need national gun laws, and treat guns like cars. registered, and licensed and insured. Disband the NRA and confiscate their assets and the profits from gun manufacturers to pay for the medical treatments of victims. like we did with big tobacco. the price in lives is to damn high so some people can own guns and falsely belief they're now safe. Because those with guns are still far more likely to use them on themselves or family members than to have it anywhere near a crime, let alone stop one.

Don't reply with the nonsense of if you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns, because as it is now the outlaws have all the guns they want, no questions asked and there has yet to be any good guys with guns stopping any of the shootings.

*please don't ban me but this is highly on topic here*

Spoiler:

Stop trump from weakening the few gun control measures that work
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/trump-nra-gun-safety-background-checks_us_5a84abdee4b0774f31d1b770
So even more people who shouldn't have guns can now buy them even if they would normally fail a background check.

this madness needs to stop, and the NRA and their paid puppets in Washington need to stop using these tragedies as commercials. More tragedies equates directly to more gun sales, and more guns leads to more tragedies. Ask yourself, is having a gun in your house worth the lives of these children and the thousands more who will die this year?

IMO no, #repealthesecond yes you have the right to defend yourself, but in exercising that right you are enabling these tragedies and if you are a member of the NRA you are directly responsible for them. The NRA is all about gun sales these days, no matter who they're sold to.

You do realize that your solution isn't just impractical and highly unlikely to ever come to fruition but some of it is actually illegal, right?

Prestor Jon wrote:
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-statement-on-the-shooting-in-parkland-florida/layout_view

FBI Statement on the Shooting in Parkland, Florida
On January 5, 2018, a person close to Nikolas Cruz contacted the FBI’s Public Access Line (PAL) tipline to report concerns about him. The caller provided information about Cruz’s gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting.

Under established protocols, the information provided by the caller should have been assessed as a potential threat to life. The information then should have been forwarded to the FBI Miami Field Office, where appropriate investigative steps would have been taken.

We have determined that these protocols were not followed for the information received by the PAL on January 5. The information was not provided to the Miami Field Office, and no further investigation was conducted at that time.

FBI Director Christopher Wray said:

“We are still investigating the facts. I am committed to getting to the bottom of what happened in this particular matter, as well as reviewing our processes for responding to information that we receive from the public. It’s up to all Americans to be vigilant, and when members of the public contact us with concerns, we must act properly and quickly.

“We have spoken with victims and families, and deeply regret the additional pain this causes all those affected by this horrific tragedy. All of the men and women of the FBI are dedicated to keeping the American people safe, and are relentlessly committed to improving all that we do and how we do it.”

Oh snap!

I wonder how many calls they get a day?

So the FBI failed to act on a tip that this was a probably danger to happen. The local police had been called in on this kid 36 times over the last four years. A psychiatric examination of the kid, that found self cutting and a fascination with firearms assessed he was not a danger. Many students and teachers at the school felt this kid was a danger.

Yet everyone is blaming the guns, and completely ignoring how everything about the system had already failed in the first place.

It's almost like some people have an agenda, and don't really want to get to the root of the matter behind these instances.

Prestor Jon wrote:
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-statement-on-the-shooting-in-parkland-florida/layout_view

FBI Statement on the Shooting in Parkland, Florida
On January 5, 2018, a person close to Nikolas Cruz contacted the FBI’s Public Access Line (PAL) tipline to report concerns about him. The caller provided information about Cruz’s gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting.

Under established protocols, the information provided by the caller should have been assessed as a potential threat to life. The information then should have been forwarded to the FBI Miami Field Office, where appropriate investigative steps would have been taken.

We have determined that these protocols were not followed for the information received by the PAL on January 5. The information was not provided to the Miami Field Office, and no further investigation was conducted at that time.

FBI Director Christopher Wray said:

“We are still investigating the facts. I am committed to getting to the bottom of what happened in this particular matter, as well as reviewing our processes for responding to information that we receive from the public. It’s up to all Americans to be vigilant, and when members of the public contact us with concerns, we must act properly and quickly.

“We have spoken with victims and families, and deeply regret the additional pain this causes all those affected by this horrific tragedy. All of the men and women of the FBI are dedicated to keeping the American people safe, and are relentlessly committed to improving all that we do and how we do it.”

Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:
It's pointless to post school shooting threads to a discussion forum where discussion of US politics is banned, because no discussion is then possible. All you could post is variations of "that's bad".

Yes, this is true.

 Easy E wrote:
Can anyone think of a nightmare scenario that would change the game on this topic?

No. When the US tolerated 20 dead kindergartners with no significant changes is when gun owners and the NRA decided as a nation we're OK with this.

fixed that for you. The nation is not ok with it, just a certain 1/2 seems to be ok with it and fight against measures to fix it.

And as we're discussing this one, yet another mass shooting at a school just took place.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4030124/washington-state-highline-college-gunfire/?utm_source=AM980London&utm_medium=Facebook

What is your proposal? This is not a criticism but a question.

IMO drastic times call for drastic measures, put a halt on the sale of guns and ammunition while the second amendment is reworked or revoked. We need national gun laws, and treat guns like cars. registered, and licensed and insured. Disband the NRA and confiscate their assets and the profits from gun manufacturers to pay for the medical treatments of victims. like we did with big tobacco. the price in lives is to damn high so some people can own guns and falsely belief they're now safe. Because those with guns are still far more likely to use them on themselves or family members than to have it anywhere near a crime, let alone stop one.

Don't reply with the nonsense of if you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns, because as it is now the outlaws have all the guns they want, no questions asked and there has yet to be any good guys with guns stopping any of the shootings.

*please don't ban me but this is highly on topic here*

Spoiler:

Stop trump from weakening the few gun control measures that work
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/trump-nra-gun-safety-background-checks_us_5a84abdee4b0774f31d1b770
So even more people who shouldn't have guns can now buy them even if they would normally fail a background check.

this madness needs to stop, and the NRA and their paid puppets in Washington need to stop using these tragedies as commercials. More tragedies equates directly to more gun sales, and more guns leads to more tragedies. Ask yourself, is having a gun in your house worth the lives of these children and the thousands more who will die this year?

IMO no, #repealthesecond yes you have the right to defend yourself, but in exercising that right you are enabling these tragedies and if you are a member of the NRA you are directly responsible for them. The NRA is all about gun sales these days, no matter who they're sold to.

You do realize that your solution isn't just impractical and highly unlikely to ever come to fruition but some of it is actually illegal, right?

Since he's talking about amending the Constitution, I'm not sure what part would be illegal.

Of course he does, he just doesn't care.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 feeder wrote:
What about a law that prevents people from storing a gun in the same residence as someone who is barred from owing one? So if your severely unwell adult son is living in your home, you need to store your gun somewhere else?

Current Federal law only bans gun ownership to people who have "been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution" that's question f. on ATF form 4473. If you want to extend that to an adult that is "severely unwell" you'd have to legally define "severely unwell." I'm not sure treating mentally unwell people like convicted felons is going to help resolve our mental health issues as a nation.

Yeah, that's what I meant by "severely unwell", not just your average magaphile.

If you have someone in your home who is legally barred from owning a firearm, you are required to store your firearms elsewhere.

yellowfever wrote:
Of course he does, he just doesn't care.

I do care though, see I care about the people not your gun.

IMO drastic times call for drastic measures, put a halt on the sale of guns and ammunition while the second amendment is reworked or revoked. We need national gun laws, and treat guns like cars. registered, and licensed and insured. Disband the NRA and confiscate their assets and the profits from gun manufacturers to pay for the medical treatments of victims. like we did with big tobacco. the price in lives is to damn high so some people can own guns and falsely belief they're now safe. Because those with guns are still far more likely to use them on themselves or family members than to have it anywhere near a crime, let alone stop one.

Don't reply with the nonsense of if you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns, because as it is now the outlaws have all the guns they want, no questions asked and there has yet to be any good guys with guns stopping any of the shootings.

Lets unpack this a little bit.

IMO drastic times call for drastic measures, put a halt on the sale of guns and ammunition while the second amendment is reworked or revoked.

This would require a Constitutional Convention or ratification of 2/3s of the states I believe. That would take no small effort.

Disband the NRA and confiscate their assets and the profits from gun manufacturers to pay for the medical treatments of victims.

This violates the First Amendment at multiple levels and would require a Constitutional Convention or ratification of 2/3s of the states. Do you really think its a good idea to eliminate the First Amendment?

This also violates the 4th Amendment (convention yada yada). Do you really want the government to be able to seize assets for no crime?

EDIT: While I would use my best legal efforts to oppose a repeal of the 2nd Amendment, attempts to repeal the 4th and the 1st will immediately lead to war, of the shooting blowing everything up total war variety.

EDIT 2: I appreciate your honesty.

 skyth wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-statement-on-the-shooting-in-parkland-florida/layout_view

Spoiler:

FBI Statement on the Shooting in Parkland, Florida
On January 5, 2018, a person close to Nikolas Cruz contacted the FBI’s Public Access Line (PAL) tipline to report concerns about him. The caller provided information about Cruz’s gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting.

Under established protocols, the information provided by the caller should have been assessed as a potential threat to life. The information then should have been forwarded to the FBI Miami Field Office, where appropriate investigative steps would have been taken.

We have determined that these protocols were not followed for the information received by the PAL on January 5. The information was not provided to the Miami Field Office, and no further investigation was conducted at that time.

FBI Director Christopher Wray said:

“We are still investigating the facts. I am committed to getting to the bottom of what happened in this particular matter, as well as reviewing our processes for responding to information that we receive from the public. It’s up to all Americans to be vigilant, and when members of the public contact us with concerns, we must act properly and quickly.

“We have spoken with victims and families, and deeply regret the additional pain this causes all those affected by this horrific tragedy. All of the men and women of the FBI are dedicated to keeping the American people safe, and are relentlessly committed to improving all that we do and how we do it.”

Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:
It's pointless to post school shooting threads to a discussion forum where discussion of US politics is banned, because no discussion is then possible. All you could post is variations of "that's bad".

Yes, this is true.

 Easy E wrote:
Can anyone think of a nightmare scenario that would change the game on this topic?

No. When the US tolerated 20 dead kindergartners with no significant changes is when gun owners and the NRA decided as a nation we're OK with this.

fixed that for you. The nation is not ok with it, just a certain 1/2 seems to be ok with it and fight against measures to fix it.

And as we're discussing this one, yet another mass shooting at a school just took place.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4030124/washington-state-highline-college-gunfire/?utm_source=AM980London&utm_medium=Facebook

What is your proposal? This is not a criticism but a question.

IMO drastic times call for drastic measures, put a halt on the sale of guns and ammunition while the second amendment is reworked or revoked. We need national gun laws, and treat guns like cars. registered, and licensed and insured. Disband the NRA and confiscate their assets and the profits from gun manufacturers to pay for the medical treatments of victims. like we did with big tobacco. the price in lives is to damn high so some people can own guns and falsely belief they're now safe. Because those with guns are still far more likely to use them on themselves or family members than to have it anywhere near a crime, let alone stop one.

Don't reply with the nonsense of if you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns, because as it is now the outlaws have all the guns they want, no questions asked and there has yet to be any good guys with guns stopping any of the shootings.

*please don't ban me but this is highly on topic here*
[spoiler]Stop trump from weakening the few gun control measures that work
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/trump-nra-gun-safety-background-checks_us_5a84abdee4b0774f31d1b770
So even more people who shouldn't have guns can now buy them even if they would normally fail a background check.

this madness needs to stop, and the NRA and their paid puppets in Washington need to stop using these tragedies as commercials. More tragedies equates directly to more gun sales, and more guns leads to more tragedies. Ask yourself, is having a gun in your house worth the lives of these children and the thousands more who will die this year?

IMO no, #repealthesecond yes you have the right to defend yourself, but in exercising that right you are enabling these tragedies and if you are a member of the NRA you are directly responsible for them. The NRA is all about gun sales these days, no matter who they're sold to.

[/spoiler]

You do realize that your solution isn't just impractical and highly unlikely to ever come to fruition but some of it is actually illegal, right?

Since he's talking about amending the Constitution, I'm not sure what part would be illegal.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:
It's pointless to post school shooting threads to a discussion forum where discussion of US politics is banned, because no discussion is then possible. All you could post is variations of "that's bad".

Yes, this is true.

 Easy E wrote:
Can anyone think of a nightmare scenario that would change the game on this topic?

No. When the US tolerated 20 dead kindergartners with no significant changes is when gun owners and the NRA decided as a nation we're OK with this.

fixed that for you. The nation is not ok with it, just a certain 1/2 seems to be ok with it and fight against measures to fix it.

And as we're discussing this one, yet another mass shooting at a school just took place.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4030124/washington-state-highline-college-gunfire/?utm_source=AM980London&utm_medium=Facebook

What is your proposal? This is not a criticism but a question.

IMO drastic times call for drastic measures, put a halt on the sale of guns and ammunition while the second amendment is reworked or revoked. We need national gun laws, and treat guns like cars. registered, and licensed and insured. Disband the NRA and confiscate their assets and the profits from gun manufacturers to pay for the medical treatments of victims. like we did with big tobacco. the price in lives is to damn high so some people can own guns and falsely belief they're now safe. Because those with guns are still far more likely to use them on themselves or family members than to have it anywhere near a crime, let alone stop one.

Don't reply with the nonsense of if you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns, because as it is now the outlaws have all the guns they want, no questions asked and there has yet to be any good guys with guns stopping any of the shootings.

*please don't ban me but this is highly on topic here*

Spoiler:

Stop trump from weakening the few gun control measures that work
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/trump-nra-gun-safety-background-checks_us_5a84abdee4b0774f31d1b770
So even more people who shouldn't have guns can now buy them even if they would normally fail a background check.

this madness needs to stop, and the NRA and their paid puppets in Washington need to stop using these tragedies as commercials. More tragedies equates directly to more gun sales, and more guns leads to more tragedies. Ask yourself, is having a gun in your house worth the lives of these children and the thousands more who will die this year?

IMO no, #repealthesecond yes you have the right to defend yourself, but in exercising that right you are enabling these tragedies and if you are a member of the NRA you are directly responsible for them. The NRA is all about gun sales these days, no matter who they're sold to.

Can you imagine how many people you'd have to shoot while implementing this? We'd have martial law in a week, just to handle the fallout.

 skyth wrote:


Since he's talking about amending the Constitution, I'm not sure what part would be illegal.

I'll bite.

1) put a halt on the sale of guns and ammunition while the second amendment is reworked or revoked.

You can't halt the sale of guns and ammunition until AFTER the second amendment is reworked or revoked.


2) Disband the NRA

Amendment I. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

3) and confiscate their assets and the profits from gun manufacturers to pay for the medical treatments of victims.

You can't seize assets without just cause and must go through a civil or criminal trial to do so.

4) like we did with big tobacco.

You glossed over the part where 15 (or so) states sued them to pay for medical treatment. They settled, of course, but it took the states Attorney's General to do so.

Can you imagine how many people you'd have to shoot while implementing this? We'd have martial law in a week, just to handle the fallout.

I would proffer that would start a second Civil War and much of the nation seceding.

 djones520 wrote:
So the FBI failed to act on a tip that this was a probably danger to happen. The local police had been called in on this kid 36 times over the last four years. A psychiatric examination of the kid, that found self cutting and a fascination with firearms assessed he was not a danger. Many students and teachers at the school felt this kid was a danger.

Yet everyone is blaming the guns, and completely ignoring how everything about the system had already failed in the first place.

Nothing he did was illegal until he started shooting. What was the FBI supposed to do?

That's where the structural problem is - since firearm ownership is a constitutional right, it's very hard to prevent someone, even someone who very obviously shouldn't have them; from getting them.

My wife's family has a lot of mental illness in it. Her brother is schizophrenic, and when he stops taking his medication, as is his wont, you really can't do anything about it at all. We've done a lot of legwork but it's nearly impossible to have someone taken into protective or mental custody if they're even slightly lucid, sometimes.

 Frazzled wrote:

IMO drastic times call for drastic measures, put a halt on the sale of guns and ammunition while the second amendment is reworked or revoked. We need national gun laws, and treat guns like cars. registered, and licensed and insured. Disband the NRA and confiscate their assets and the profits from gun manufacturers to pay for the medical treatments of victims. like we did with big tobacco. the price in lives is to damn high so some people can own guns and falsely belief they're now safe. Because those with guns are still far more likely to use them on themselves or family members than to have it anywhere near a crime, let alone stop one.

Don't reply with the nonsense of if you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns, because as it is now the outlaws have all the guns they want, no questions asked and there has yet to be any good guys with guns stopping any of the shootings.

Lets unpack this a little bit.

IMO drastic times call for drastic measures, put a halt on the sale of guns and ammunition while the second amendment is reworked or revoked.

This would require a Constitutional Convention or ratification of 2/3s of the states I believe. That would take no small effort.

Disband the NRA and confiscate their assets and the profits from gun manufacturers to pay for the medical treatments of victims.
This violates the First Amendment at multiple levels and would require a Constitutional Convention or ratification of 2/3s of the states. Do you really think its a good idea to eliminate the First Amendment?

This also violates the 4th Amendment (convention yada yada). Do you really want the government to be able to seize assets for no crime?

and since just taking the profits from the gun compansies is causing issues, let's just freeze them til it's work out.

Like I said, we did it for the tobacco companies, multiple times, it can be done without a convention for the NRA. And we still have our FIrst amendment.

the government currently seizes assets for no crimes, see eminent domain.

You're right though, my plan would take significant effort and a lot of work, but all things worth doing usually do. Let's remember the current plan though, do nothing, make getting guns easier, and wonder why gun violence is getting worse.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

IMO drastic times call for drastic measures, put a halt on the sale of guns and ammunition while the second amendment is reworked or revoked. We need national gun laws, and treat guns like cars. registered, and licensed and insured. Disband the NRA and confiscate their assets and the profits from gun manufacturers to pay for the medical treatments of victims. like we did with big tobacco. the price in lives is to damn high so some people can own guns and falsely belief they're now safe. Because those with guns are still far more likely to use them on themselves or family members than to have it anywhere near a crime, let alone stop one.

Don't reply with the nonsense of if you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns, because as it is now the outlaws have all the guns they want, no questions asked and there has yet to be any good guys with guns stopping any of the shootings.

Lets unpack this a little bit.

IMO drastic times call for drastic measures, put a halt on the sale of guns and ammunition while the second amendment is reworked or revoked.

This would require a Constitutional Convention or ratification of 2/3s of the states I believe. That would take no small effort.

Disband the NRA and confiscate their assets and the profits from gun manufacturers to pay for the medical treatments of victims.
This violates the First Amendment at multiple levels and would require a Constitutional Convention or ratification of 2/3s of the states. Do you really think its a good idea to eliminate the First Amendment?

This also violates the 4th Amendment (convention yada yada). Do you really want the government to be able to seize assets for no crime?

and since just taking the profits from the gun compansies is causing issues, let's just freeze them til it's work out.

Like I said, we did it for the tobacco companies, multiple times, it can be done without a convention for the NRA. And we still have our FIrst amendment.

the government currently seizes assets for no crimes, see eminent domain.

You're right though, my plan would take significant effort and a lot of work, but all things worth doing usually do. Let's remember the current plan though, do nothing, make getting guns easier, and wonder why gun violence is getting worse.

States won lawsuits against the Tobacco companies because they sued the companies for deliberately hiding material facts about their product (that it was addictive and caused cancer) and the trial proved that the companies did in fact do that. What is it that you think gun manufacturers are hiding from the public? Everybody knows guns shoot bullets and are very dangerous lethal weapons. You can't just sue gun manufacturers for selling guns, that's not illegal and even if Congress made gun sales and gun ownership illegal the manufacturers would still be immune from post facto prosecution.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
So the FBI failed to act on a tip that this was a probably danger to happen. The local police had been called in on this kid 36 times over the last four years. A psychiatric examination of the kid, that found self cutting and a fascination with firearms assessed he was not a danger. Many students and teachers at the school felt this kid was a danger.

Yet everyone is blaming the guns, and completely ignoring how everything about the system had already failed in the first place.

Nothing he did was illegal until he started shooting. What was the FBI supposed to do?

That's where the structural problem is - since firearm ownership is a constitutional right, it's very hard to prevent someone, even someone who very obviously shouldn't have them; from getting them.

My wife's family has a lot of mental illness in it. Her brother is schizophrenic, and when he stops taking his medication, as is his wont, you really can't do anything about it at all. We've done a lot of legwork but it's nearly impossible to have someone taken into protective or mental custody if they're even slightly lucid, sometimes.

Regardless of the 2nd amendment the bigger issue is that it is very difficult for the State to involuntarily commit somebody or force them to take medication. That in and of itself is not a bad thing, it should be difficult for the State to imprison people against their will or to alter their bodies against their will. Nobody wants to live under conditions where telling somebody you're depressed can get you locked up. We've created a society that manufacturers a certain number of mentally ill people. Is sweeping these people under the rug by rounding them up and locking them away the best answer? Are just going to keep on trucking as a society and involuntarily commit another crop of mentally ill people every year? That sounds like dealing with a symptom not a cause.

 skyth wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-statement-on-the-shooting-in-parkland-florida/layout_view

FBI Statement on the Shooting in Parkland, Florida
On January 5, 2018, a person close to Nikolas Cruz contacted the FBI’s Public Access Line (PAL) tipline to report concerns about him. The caller provided information about Cruz’s gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting.

Under established protocols, the information provided by the caller should have been assessed as a potential threat to life. The information then should have been forwarded to the FBI Miami Field Office, where appropriate investigative steps would have been taken.

We have determined that these protocols were not followed for the information received by the PAL on January 5. The information was not provided to the Miami Field Office, and no further investigation was conducted at that time.

FBI Director Christopher Wray said:

“We are still investigating the facts. I am committed to getting to the bottom of what happened in this particular matter, as well as reviewing our processes for responding to information that we receive from the public. It’s up to all Americans to be vigilant, and when members of the public contact us with concerns, we must act properly and quickly.

“We have spoken with victims and families, and deeply regret the additional pain this causes all those affected by this horrific tragedy. All of the men and women of the FBI are dedicated to keeping the American people safe, and are relentlessly committed to improving all that we do and how we do it.”

Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:
It's pointless to post school shooting threads to a discussion forum where discussion of US politics is banned, because no discussion is then possible. All you could post is variations of "that's bad".

Yes, this is true.

 Easy E wrote:
Can anyone think of a nightmare scenario that would change the game on this topic?

No. When the US tolerated 20 dead kindergartners with no significant changes is when gun owners and the NRA decided as a nation we're OK with this.

fixed that for you. The nation is not ok with it, just a certain 1/2 seems to be ok with it and fight against measures to fix it.

And as we're discussing this one, yet another mass shooting at a school just took place.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4030124/washington-state-highline-college-gunfire/?utm_source=AM980London&utm_medium=Facebook

What is your proposal? This is not a criticism but a question.

IMO drastic times call for drastic measures, put a halt on the sale of guns and ammunition while the second amendment is reworked or revoked. We need national gun laws, and treat guns like cars. registered, and licensed and insured. Disband the NRA and confiscate their assets and the profits from gun manufacturers to pay for the medical treatments of victims. like we did with big tobacco. the price in lives is to damn high so some people can own guns and falsely belief they're now safe. Because those with guns are still far more likely to use them on themselves or family members than to have it anywhere near a crime, let alone stop one.

Don't reply with the nonsense of if you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns, because as it is now the outlaws have all the guns they want, no questions asked and there has yet to be any good guys with guns stopping any of the shootings.

*please don't ban me but this is highly on topic here*

Spoiler:

Stop trump from weakening the few gun control measures that work
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/trump-nra-gun-safety-background-checks_us_5a84abdee4b0774f31d1b770
So even more people who shouldn't have guns can now buy them even if they would normally fail a background check.

this madness needs to stop, and the NRA and their paid puppets in Washington need to stop using these tragedies as commercials. More tragedies equates directly to more gun sales, and more guns leads to more tragedies. Ask yourself, is having a gun in your house worth the lives of these children and the thousands more who will die this year?

IMO no, #repealthesecond yes you have the right to defend yourself, but in exercising that right you are enabling these tragedies and if you are a member of the NRA you are directly responsible for them. The NRA is all about gun sales these days, no matter who they're sold to.

You do realize that your solution isn't just impractical and highly unlikely to ever come to fruition but some of it is actually illegal, right?

Since he's talking about amending the Constitution, I'm not sure what part would be illegal.

much as many dont like the NRA, unilaterally seizing it, breaking it up, and confiscating its assets would very much be illegal on multiple different levels, even if the 2nd amendment was repealed.

Like I said, we did it for the tobacco companies, multiple times, it can be done without a convention for the NRA. And we still have our FIrst amendment.

Apologies but that is not accurate.
1. The tobacco companies made a large settlement as they were charged with knowingly selling a harmful product. To be comparable, the gun makers would have to sell products that they knew had technical problems that made them unsafe to use.

the government currently seizes assets for no crimes, see eminent domain.

Eminent domain is related to land, not the monetary assets of private groups (NRA) or companies.

You're right though, my plan would take significant effort and a lot of work, but all things worth doing usually do. Let's remember the current plan though, do nothing, make getting guns easier, and wonder why gun violence is getting worse.

Your plan violates the basic tenants of three of the Bill of Rights. Its not a thins "worth doing," unless your intent is to start a war that kills millions (if we use Civil War numbers adjusted to current populations).

Could you mayhaps modify your proposal to one that doesn't do that?

Prestor Jon wrote:
Regardless of the 2nd amendment the bigger issue is that it is very difficult for the State to involuntarily commit somebody or force them to take medication. That in and of itself is not a bad thing, it should be difficult for the State to imprison people against their will or to alter their bodies against their will. Nobody wants to live under conditions where telling somebody you're depressed can get you locked up.

I agree, but I also feel obliged to point out that as it lays now, nothing is keeping my brother in law from buying as many firearms as he wants to despite him very definitely not being a person who should own them. This goes back to the point about how the FBI was tipped off but did nothing - what could they have done if he hadn't committed a crime yet?

I don't know what the solution is but it's a real problem. I don't agree with Sirlynchmobs exact approach but I also think our current interpretations of 2nd amendment is very problematic. Since there is no will to change it, this is not a problem that is going to be fixed and I can't really see anything changing that.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 skyth wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-statement-on-the-shooting-in-parkland-florida/layout_view

Spoiler:

FBI Statement on the Shooting in Parkland, Florida
On January 5, 2018, a person close to Nikolas Cruz contacted the FBI’s Public Access Line (PAL) tipline to report concerns about him. The caller provided information about Cruz’s gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting.

Under established protocols, the information provided by the caller should have been assessed as a potential threat to life. The information then should have been forwarded to the FBI Miami Field Office, where appropriate investigative steps would have been taken.

We have determined that these protocols were not followed for the information received by the PAL on January 5. The information was not provided to the Miami Field Office, and no further investigation was conducted at that time.

FBI Director Christopher Wray said:

“We are still investigating the facts. I am committed to getting to the bottom of what happened in this particular matter, as well as reviewing our processes for responding to information that we receive from the public. It’s up to all Americans to be vigilant, and when members of the public contact us with concerns, we must act properly and quickly.

“We have spoken with victims and families, and deeply regret the additional pain this causes all those affected by this horrific tragedy. All of the men and women of the FBI are dedicated to keeping the American people safe, and are relentlessly committed to improving all that we do and how we do it.”

Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:
It's pointless to post school shooting threads to a discussion forum where discussion of US politics is banned, because no discussion is then possible. All you could post is variations of "that's bad".

Yes, this is true.

 Easy E wrote:
Can anyone think of a nightmare scenario that would change the game on this topic?

No. When the US tolerated 20 dead kindergartners with no significant changes is when gun owners and the NRA decided as a nation we're OK with this.

fixed that for you. The nation is not ok with it, just a certain 1/2 seems to be ok with it and fight against measures to fix it.

And as we're discussing this one, yet another mass shooting at a school just took place.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4030124/washington-state-highline-college-gunfire/?utm_source=AM980London&utm_medium=Facebook

What is your proposal? This is not a criticism but a question.

IMO drastic times call for drastic measures, put a halt on the sale of guns and ammunition while the second amendment is reworked or revoked. We need national gun laws, and treat guns like cars. registered, and licensed and insured. Disband the NRA and confiscate their assets and the profits from gun manufacturers to pay for the medical treatments of victims. like we did with big tobacco. the price in lives is to damn high so some people can own guns and falsely belief they're now safe. Because those with guns are still far more likely to use them on themselves or family members than to have it anywhere near a crime, let alone stop one.

Don't reply with the nonsense of if you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns, because as it is now the outlaws have all the guns they want, no questions asked and there has yet to be any good guys with guns stopping any of the shootings.

*please don't ban me but this is highly on topic here*
[spoiler]Stop trump from weakening the few gun control measures that work
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/trump-nra-gun-safety-background-checks_us_5a84abdee4b0774f31d1b770
So even more people who shouldn't have guns can now buy them even if they would normally fail a background check.

this madness needs to stop, and the NRA and their paid puppets in Washington need to stop using these tragedies as commercials. More tragedies equates directly to more gun sales, and more guns leads to more tragedies. Ask yourself, is having a gun in your house worth the lives of these children and the thousands more who will die this year?

IMO no, #repealthesecond yes you have the right to defend yourself, but in exercising that right you are enabling these tragedies and if you are a member of the NRA you are directly responsible for them. The NRA is all about gun sales these days, no matter who they're sold to.

[/spoiler]

You do realize that your solution isn't just impractical and highly unlikely to ever come to fruition but some of it is actually illegal, right?

Since he's talking about amending the Constitution, I'm not sure what part would be illegal.

Amending the constitution is the part that is impractical and highly unlikely, the illegal part is disbanding the NRA, seizing their assets and seizing profits from gun manufacturers. The Federal govt didn't seize the assets or profits of the Tobacco Industry, state AGs sued tobacco companies in court, won the case and were awarded monetary compensation as part of the judgement.

 Ouze wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Regardless of the 2nd amendment the bigger issue is that it is very difficult for the State to involuntarily commit somebody or force them to take medication. That in and of itself is not a bad thing, it should be difficult for the State to imprison people against their will or to alter their bodies against their will. Nobody wants to live under conditions where telling somebody you're depressed can get you locked up.

I agree, but I also feel obliged to point out that as it lays now, nothing is keeping my brother in law from buying as many firearms as he wants to despite him very definitely not being a person who should own them. This goes back to the point about how the FBI was tipped off but did nothing - what could they have done if he hadn't committed a crime yet?

I don't know what the solution is but it's a real problem. I don't agree with Sirlynchmobs exact approach but I also think our current interpretations of 2nd amendment is very problematic. Since there is no will to change it, this is not a problem that is going to be fixed and I can't really see anything changing that.

Here's where legislation can be made. If a person has been reported as being mentally ill, then their firearms can be temporarily seized or removed to another person until it is adjudicated that that person is mentally healthy, sufficient to own firearms. This would require court adjudication with a right for the person to have counsel and contest.

Similarly, if they are reported as being mentally ill, then they go on the NICS do not sell them firearms list. Further the law would require police, mental health, insurance etc professionals to report this.

 Frazzled wrote:

Here's where legislation can be made. If a person has been reported as being mentally ill, then their firearms can be temporarily seized or removed to another person until it is adjudicated that that person is mentally healthy, sufficient to own firearms. This would require court adjudication with a right for the person to have counsel and contest.

Similarly, if they are reported as being mentally ill, then they go on the NICS do not sell them firearms list. Further the law would require police, mental health, insurance etc professionals to report this.

What is mental illness though? What does it mean before someone is considered mentally ill? Can someone stop being mentally ill? What does that take?

Yeah, the issue is that current SC has veered from previous precedent holding in Heller that an individual right to possess firearms. The basically overturned 70 years of precedent, but did not go so far as to say that the right was unlimited and did give some examples of presumptively lawful limitations including laws that prohibit firearm possession by felons and the mentally ill, forbid firearm possession in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings; and Impose conditions on the commercial sale of firearms.

The NRA has been a big player in expanding gun ownership (not surprising as they are an organization representing weapon manufacturer interests),and have had a focused well funded campaign that has reaped huge dividends, but that still doesn't mean they can unilaterally be squelched. Rather, it is indicative of the constant values struggle in an open society- how do you combat the massive monetary interests that profit at the expense of the citizenry? Especially when large segments of the citizenry support them? But that gets back into politics, doesn't it?

 daedalus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Here's where legislation can be made. If a person has been reported as being mentally ill, then their firearms can be temporarily seized or removed to another person until it is adjudicated that that person is mentally healthy, sufficient to own firearms. This would require court adjudication with a right for the person to have counsel and contest.

Similarly, if they are reported as being mentally ill, then they go on the NICS do not sell them firearms list. Further the law would require police, mental health, insurance etc professionals to report this.

What is mental illness though? What does it mean before someone is considered mentally ill? Can someone stop being mentally ill? What does that take?

These can be defined. After all a version of it is on the NICS test.
Further, California has a version of that.