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.

 LumenPraebeo wrote:
This guy clearly had issues, and there was evidence. It should have been enough to stop him from obtaining a firearm

By what mechanism?

 LumenPraebeo wrote:
I agree that citizens of the United States should be able to own and bear arms.

 LumenPraebeo wrote:
I don't think they should be allowed to be carried in public.

Right to bear arms ... but not carry them in public? Also, in your example, the store owner's shop is considered "in public."

 Vash108 wrote:

CCW is pretty much a joke everywhere else. Walk in. Insert Money. Take CCW.

Maybe that's true where you live, but it's certainly not true in every state. A lot of states have significant training requirements.

 Vaktathi wrote:
It would also require ranges to then have storage space for every person who shoots there, which could get very large and expensive indeed.

Well, bowlings can do that, why would firing range be unable to?

 Vaktathi wrote:
That said, given the huge number of people killed by cars *completely unintentionally*, we're talking about something at least as dangerous if not moreso.

Yeah, but a risk that is more worthwhile.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Different, but directly linked.

And so is drunk driving to normal driving.

Well, the argument of “But people can organize themselves to combat the government using their guns” seems awfully close to “But people can form armed paramilitary units”, much more so than “But people can use car to visit their relatives that live far away” is close to “But people can just drink a lot before driving”.

 Manchu wrote:

 LumenPraebeo wrote:
This guy clearly had issues, and there was evidence. It should have been enough to stop him from obtaining a firearm

By what mechanism?

You telling me you can't seem to think up any evidence you can squeeze from this dude that might make it seem like a good decision to not give him a gun? And if you're talking about him obtaining one illegally, then the point is moot, since not much can be done about that can it? Except maybe a flying robot with a camera attached to it following him around all day.

 Manchu wrote:

 LumenPraebeo wrote:
I agree that citizens of the United States should be able to own and bear arms.

 LumenPraebeo wrote:
I don't think they should be allowed to be carried in public.

Right to bear arms ... but not carry them in public? Also, in your example, the store owner's shop is considered "in public."

Yes, right to bear arms, but not carry them in public. Whatever you think I'm trying to say is probably what I'm trying to say. And yes, it would be public wouldn't it? I still think the owner of the store should be allowed to have a gun to defend his/her wares though. Sorry, didn't change my opinion

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Well, bowlings can do that, why would firing range be unable to?

I guess nothing super critical but many would need to make construction additions, and it would certainly make ammunition much more expensive (as the range now has a captive market) and limit the types of weapons you could shoot (as they wouldn't stock everything, I'd probably never get to shoot my K-31 again).

Then there's also the issue of the uncounted billions of rounds of ammunition already in civilian hands. I've got enough ammo to take most of my firearms shooting for an hour or two each currently if I pace myself, and that's probably about a thousand rounds right there and I'd consider myself "low" on ammo (e.g. I have nothing to feed my .22 or my 9mm right now).

How is one going to reliably collect all of that ammunition? And, are you going to reimburse people for it (and where do you get those funds from)? I'd be real angry if I had to just surrender several hundred dollars worth of perfectly good ammunition for no compensation and the prospect of having to pay more in the future with fewer places to shoot at and fewer choices to shoot with.

Yeah, but a risk that is more worthwhile.

That's where it becomes subjective. I'd consider both to be worth the risk.

Well, the argument of “But people can organize themselves to combat the government using their guns” seems awfully close to “But people can form armed paramilitary units”, much more so than “But people can use car to visit their relatives that live far away” is close to “But people can just drink a lot before driving”.

Depends on your point of view. I know lots of people who have driven drunk or high, and several have gotten DUI's or collisions because of it. I've only ever met one person who's ever been part of any sort of group that could be remotely considered a "paramilitary", he really was just a dude that sat with his Glock in a holster while he sat on a hill in his yard with a buddy with some binoculars and bothered the Border Patrol everytime they saw something "strange".

 LumenPraebeo wrote:
I think gun control laws can be more thorough and stringent in their background checks for a firearms permit and a firearm without resorting to an outright ban. This guy clearly had issues, and there was evidence. It should have been enough to stop him from obtaining a firearm, but it obviously wasn't.

Be specific. How precisely do you think that gun control laws can be "more thorough and stringent"? Remember, the attacker got his guns legally in California which is not exactly a Mecca for gun owners, is known for being a "may issue" State, and has been at the forefront of "common sense" restrictions on firearms.
You also ignored the point that a Senator cane out after this tragedy to push for gun control, and pretty much admitted that what he is pushing would have done nothing in this case.

 LumenPraebeo wrote:
I agree that citizens of the United States should be able to own and bear arms. I don't think they should be allowed to be carried in public. If you can't understand why that is, then I can't really explain it to you.

There we go with the contradictions again,. And self-defense against crime or an attack only happens at home?
If you really can't substantiate your position then is it a viable one? Why should someone not be able to possess a CCW in public?

 LumenPraebeo wrote:
I do think buildings should have firearms installed. A teacher would be able to defend students if someone decides to shoot up a school. A store owner would be able to defend his store.

So we install firearms (who installs them? Who purchases them? Who buys the ammunition? Who is responsible for the maintenance? Who is accountable for them? Who has access to them? How are they secured?) that are likely only to see periodic use by people who are unfamiliar with them, and that is supposed to make people safer? Surely it is easier to allow for CCW so that the people possessing the firearm actually know the features of the weapon (location of safeties; whether you hold the sights on target, or at 6 o'clock; recoil to expect; etc.)

 LumenPraebeo wrote:
And lastly, there's no contradiction. I can think of a few ways to increase monitoring of firearms without gimping peoples ability to defend themselves. I'm sure you can too.

How can we be too strict with gun control laws, yet have laws that are too loose when it comes to people buying guns? I would really like you to explain this, and be specific.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Be specific. How precisely do you think that gun control laws can be "more thorough and stringent"? Remember, the attacker got his guns legally in California which is not exactly a Mecca for gun owners, is known for being a "may issue" State, and has been at the forefront of "common sense" restrictions on firearms.
You also ignored the point that a Senator cane out after this tragedy to push for gun control, and pretty much admitted that what he is pushing would have done nothing in this case.
There we go with the contradictions again,. And self-defense against crime or an attack only happens at home?
If you really can't substantiate your position then is it a viable one? Why should someone not be able to possess a CCW in public?
So we install firearms (who installs them? Who purchases them? Who buys the ammunition? Who is responsible for the maintenance? Who is accountable for them? Who has access to them? How are they secured?) that are likely only to see periodic use by people who are unfamiliar with them, and that is supposed to make people safer? Surely it is easier to allow for CCW so that the people possessing the firearm actually know the features of the weapon (location of safeties; whether you hold the sights on target, or at 6 o'clock; recoil to expect; etc.)
How can we be too strict with gun control laws, yet have laws that are too loose when it comes to people buying guns? I would really like you to explain this, and be specific.

Dude, I'm too lazy to post a small essay to explain to you everything I'm thinking. Use your imagination.
You know what, maybe I'll come back to it when I feel like writing an essay. Maybe I'll PM it to you.

 Hordini wrote:

 Vash108 wrote:

CCW is pretty much a joke everywhere else. Walk in. Insert Money. Take CCW.

Maybe that's true where you live, but it's certainly not true in every state. A lot of states have significant training requirements.

I wish we did.

 LumenPraebeo wrote:
You telling me you can't seem to think up any evidence you can squeeze from this dude that might make it seem like a good decision to not give him a gun?

No, I'm asking by what mechanism should he be evaluated to be relieved of 2nd Amendment rights.

 LumenPraebeo wrote:
Yes, right to bear arms, but not carry them in public. Whatever you think I'm trying to say is probably what I'm trying to say.

Indeed, res ipsa loquitur ...

Don't say the Mental Health Sessions he had being that it falls under HIPAA

 Vash108 wrote:


I wish we did.

In Ohio you have to take 8 hours of classroom training, apply for your license, get fingerprinted, have your fingerprints run through AFIS, and then typically wait 2-3 months to get it (I've seen shorter, I've seen longer).

That's what I was implying earlier: that not all states are "get it and go."

 LordofHats wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Can you imagine He does the killing then gets out of country and joins the French Foreign Legion

And then he hooks up with a semi-pleasant British librarian in Egypt and accidentally awakens a mummy who wants to bring about the apocalypse

I'm still sweet on Rachel Weisz from that despite that being however many years ago.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:


It would maybe drive the cost up, but yeah, it would make shooting akin to how about everyone plays bowling. You go to the place, rent the equipment, have fun, give back the equipment and then leave.

The coolest thing about the United States is that we're like, allowed to own property and stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

I am still not okay with people willing to take that risk for their personal pleasure. But then again, I am one of those annoying vegetarians…

This explains oh so very much.

I eat what I kill, and venison is delicious. Don't have any antlers on my walls. Don't have any rabbits feet on my keychain.

 Manchu wrote:

 LumenPraebeo wrote:
You telling me you can't seem to think up any evidence you can squeeze from this dude that might make it seem like a good decision to not give him a gun?

No, I'm asking by what mechanism should he be evaluated to be relieved of 2nd Amendment rights.

Well, I'm sure if I was a lawmaker, with given time, I can write up a 200 page law that no one cares about. But for starters, if someone posts videos like this guy did, or if he visits a website like whatever it is this dude visited, he should probably not be issued a gun license, and all attempts should be made to make sure he can't reach a loaded one. I don't believe the people issueing the licenses are doing even half as good a job as they should be in being thorough with their background checks and information gatherings. At average, it should have the level of observation that a crime investigation should have.

 LumenPraebeo wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 LumenPraebeo wrote:
You telling me you can't seem to think up any evidence you can squeeze from this dude that might make it seem like a good decision to not give him a gun?

No, I'm asking by what mechanism should he be evaluated to be relieved of 2nd Amendment rights.

Well, I'm sure if I was a lawmaker, with given time, I can write up a 200 page law that no one cares about. But for starters, if someone posts videos like this guy did, or if he visits a website like whatever it is this dude visited, he should probably not be issued a gun license, and all attempts should be made to make sure he can't reach a loaded one.

So angry people aren't allowed to have guns now?

How about sad people?

 sebster wrote:
But I think one issue is that unless a crime is committed, its pretty hard to get someone committed unless they're willing, and that appears to be the only other step.

My wife's mother, a few years back, started to have a serious of incidents where she would randomly start screaming at people, and wander around in public lost and agitated. She lived alone, and when it was clear she was a danger to herself, we tried having her committed temporarily for a psychiatric evaluation since we presumed this was incipient schizophrenia, of which there is a family history.

Turns out, it's incredibly hard to have someone committed against their will in this country* (as it probably should be) no matter how clearly they are delusional or outwardly... well, nutso acting. It's pretty heartbreaking to be on the other end of this, when you're impotent to help someone who will not allow themselves to be helped.


*Eventually she got into a screaming match with a cop, and then boom, psychiatric hold and then subsequent treatment.

 Ouze wrote:

 sebster wrote:
But I think one issue is that unless a crime is committed, its pretty hard to get someone committed unless they're willing, and that appears to be the only other step.

My wife's mother, a few years back, started to have a serious of incidents where she would randomly start screaming at people, and wander around in public lost and agitated. She lived alone, and when it was clear she was a danger to herself, we tried having her committed temporarily for a psychiatric evaluation since we presumed this was incipient schizophrenia, of which there is a family history.

Turns out, it's incredibly hard to have someone committed against their will in this country* (as it probably should be) no matter how clearly they are delusional or outwardly... well, nutso acting. It's pretty heartbreaking to be on the other end of this, when you're impotent to help someone who will not allow themselves to be helped.


*Eventually she got into a screaming match with a cop, and then boom, psychiatric hold and then subsequent treatment.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the burden in the US to institutionalize is a clear and present danger to others, right?

 cincydooley wrote:
So angry people aren't allowed to have guns now?

How about sad people?

No, angry and sad can have guns.
Not that my opinion makes this law though....

 LumenPraebeo wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 LumenPraebeo wrote:
You telling me you can't seem to think up any evidence you can squeeze from this dude that might make it seem like a good decision to not give him a gun?

No, I'm asking by what mechanism should he be evaluated to be relieved of 2nd Amendment rights.

Well, I'm sure if I was a lawmaker, with given time, I can write up a 200 page law that no one cares about. But for starters, if someone posts videos like this guy did, or if he visits a website like whatever it is this dude visited, he should probably not be issued a gun license, and all attempts should be made to make sure he can't reach a loaded one.

Visiting a website is neither a crime nor an indication of mental health impairment. Otherwise everything from journalistic research to simple curiosity to "rickrolling" type tricks or accidental misclicks could deprive someone of their 2nd amendment rights.

Likewise, neither is posting videos with unsavory content a crime or an indication of mental health impairment, unless clear and direct threats are being made and adjudicated as such through the legal system. And who gets to police the internet going through hundreds of millions of videos doing that and deciding where the 1st amendment ends and constitutes a reason to deprive someone of their 2nd amendment rights?

 Vaktathi wrote:
Visiting a website is neither a crime nor an indication of mental health impairment. Otherwise everything from journalistic research to simple curiosity to "rickrolling" type tricks or accidental misclicks could deprive someone of their 2nd amendment rights.

Likewise, neither is posting videos with unsavory content a crime or an indication of mental health impairment, unless clear and direct threats are being made and adjudicated as such through the legal system. And who gets to police the internet going through hundreds of millions of videos doing that and deciding where the 1st amendment ends and constitutes a reason to deprive someone of their 2nd amendment rights?

It should be if you post the things this guy did. I'm also pretty sure he made a clear and direct threat in the video posted by the OP. You don't have to police the internet, you can just look through what this dude posted.

But how are you going to do that before they do anything dangerous?

People post under alias and bogus names all the time. How can you tell if Joe Blow here has done anything like that?

 LumenPraebeo wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Visiting a website is neither a crime nor an indication of mental health impairment. Otherwise everything from journalistic research to simple curiosity to "rickrolling" type tricks or accidental misclicks could deprive someone of their 2nd amendment rights.

Likewise, neither is posting videos with unsavory content a crime or an indication of mental health impairment, unless clear and direct threats are being made and adjudicated as such through the legal system. And who gets to police the internet going through hundreds of millions of videos doing that and deciding where the 1st amendment ends and constitutes a reason to deprive someone of their 2nd amendment rights?

It should be if you post the things this guy did. I'm also pretty sure he made a clear and direct threat in the video posted by the OP. You don't have to police the internet, you can just look through what this dude posted.

So how do people find what videos you posted and how is the determination made (and by whom) that content is indicative of a mental health disorder or other sort of potential public danger?

 cincydooley wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the burden in the US to institutionalize is a clear and present danger to others, right?

Themselves or others. No psychiatrist is going to recommend someone be institutionalized against their will unless they have evidence to prove it. If you take a poor case to the judge, you open yourself up to a lawsuit.

 Vaktathi wrote:
And who gets to police the internet going through hundreds of millions of videos doing that and deciding where the 1st amendment ends and constitutes a reason to deprive someone of their 2nd amendment rights?

The guy killed 3 people in his apartment with a hammer before he took his rampage to the streets. This while he was only 5'9 135lbs. Needless to say, he wasn't a physically imposing individual and was still able to pull off a mass murder successfully without the use of a firearm. He planned it out over a several year period and god knows what he did to the bodies..


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LumenPraebeo wrote:
It should be if you post the things this guy did. I'm also pretty sure he made a clear and direct threat in the video posted by the OP. You don't have to police the internet, you can just look through what this dude posted.

He had a "wellness check" a couple days prior and talked his way out of it.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I guess nothing super critical but many would need to make construction additions, and it would certainly make ammunition much more expensive (as the range now has a captive market) and limit the types of weapons you could shoot (as they wouldn't stock everything, I'd probably never get to shoot my K-31 again).

It would maybe make ammunition more expensive (the competition would be between firing ranges rather than between ammunition stores), and it would certainly decrease the number of available weapon types, yes.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Then there's also the issue of the uncounted billions of rounds of ammunition already in civilian hands.

I do not know, but I guess even just letting it be would work in the long term though.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I've only ever met one person who's ever been part of any sort of group that could be remotely considered a "paramilitary", he really was just a dude that sat with his Glock in a holster while he sat on a hill in his yard with a buddy with some binoculars and bothered the Border Patrol everytime they saw something "strange".

Yeah, I agree that the argument “We need guns to protect ourselves from the government” does not represent any kind of present reality. However, what I am saying is that this argument is extremely similar to “We need guns so that we can create armed militia”, so it is neither grounded in reality nor necessarily a good thing.

 cincydooley wrote:
The coolest thing about the United States is that we're like, allowed to own property and stuff.

Oh, you are? I thought actually there was a bunch of stuff that even just owning could send you right into prison in the U.S.A. How does that relate to your nice picture about the coolest thing in there? I mean, certainly that must be a mistake, they cannot take you in prison for owning cocaine, because in the U.S.A., you allowed to own property and stuff!
Nah, I think actually that is the coolest thing about Somalia. There, you can pretty much own anything you want and the government will not send you in jail. Because, what government? It is truly the land of the free!

 Vaktathi wrote:
So how do people find what videos you posted and how is the determination made (and by whom) that content is indicative of a mental health disorder or other sort of potential public danger?

Skim through his room, his computer(if you cant google his youtube account). Maybe interview his family, friends. Check his cellphone. Check his work place. Check the government records. Make sure his house isn't being foreclosed. Check for suicidal urges, interview neighbors. Check his finance. Any one of those things, preferably all of them. As for determinations made and potential danger, I don't have a certain opinion yet. I'll have to get back to you on that. For now, use your imagination. At what point do you think a person should have gun privileges withheld?

dereksatkinson wrote:

 LumenPraebeo wrote:
It should be if you post the things this guy did. I'm also pretty sure he made a clear and direct threat in the video posted by the OP. You don't have to police the internet, you can just look through what this dude posted.

He had a "wellness check" a couple days prior and talked his way out of it.

Which he shouldn't have been able to. Those should be fired.

Lawsuit for harassment by LEO if they go that far into his background to check before it happen

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

It would maybe make ammunition more expensive (the competition would be between firing ranges rather than between ammunition stores), and it would certainly decrease the number of available weapon types, yes.

Which to me would be unreasonable.

I do not know, but I guess even just letting it be would work in the long term though.

Ammunition keeps for a long time. The last stack of ammo I bought for my AK-74 had spent the nearly the last 40 years in a Soviet (later Russian) military arsenal. I've shot 70 year old 7.62x54r ammo out of a Mosin-Nagant. The last 12 gauge shells I used were purchased in 1981. The stuff lasts.

Yeah, I agree that the argument “We need guns to protect ourselves from the government” does not represent any kind of present reality. However, what I am saying is that this argument is extremely similar to “We need guns so that we can create armed militia”, so it is neither grounded in reality nor necessarily a good thing.

In general peacetime I would agree. It's a safeguard in case of duress that dates back nearly 240 years. As much a cultural thing as anything else.

 Vaktathi wrote:
It's a safeguard in case of duress that dates back nearly 240 years.

How many time was it used during those 240 years?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
It's a safeguard in case of duress that dates back nearly 240 years.

How many time was it used during those 240 years?

I've lived 30 years without a house fire. Were I a thinking man like yourself, I would rip out all those costly smoke alarms and sprinkler systems.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
It's a safeguard in case of duress that dates back nearly 240 years.

How many time was it used during those 240 years?

It was used during the western expansion era's.

 Jihadin wrote:
Lawsuit for harassment by LEO if they go that far into his background to check before it happen

Perhaps an exception for right to privacy should be made for these types of background checks. Or perhaps not so far if its a renewal. And for the record, I think there should be a limit to peoples right to privacy. Not so much that government can boss us around, but it should be there. But I also would rather not go off topic...

 daedalus wrote:
I've lived 30 years without a house fire. Were I a thinking man like yourself, I would rip out all those costly smoke alarms and sprinkler systems.

I think you'd be safe. I also think that's a genuine curiosity he has about that 240 years.