Louisiana Theater Shooting

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.

**Dreadclaw69**

Ouze wrote:
In this specific case, presuming that NICS failed: If proper flags had been raised, this person wouldn't have been able to lawfully buy a gun. Why did NICS fail in this case, and in the previous case with Dylann Roof? Was it a technical failure? Is it a funding issue? Is it poorly written legislation? Is it understaffing? Is there a hole, legally speaking, regarding mental health reporting? I don't know the answers to those questions, but assuming that NICS did fail, that seems like a good place to start.

With Roof the FBI failed to update their records in a timely fashion. In this case given that there were four criteria that should have prevented a sale I would be interested to see what the reason for this failure was.

Ouze wrote:
I read a news article the other day about SSA drafting a plan to, when approproate, report people to NICS when they are on Social Security Disability for reasons of mental impairment; i.e. people who are eligible to receive disability because of mental issues so severe they cannot work (or fully work). By any RAW interpretation, this would count as a mentally deficient adjudication... right?

So of course, the right-wing lie-o-sphere is reporting it as "Obama's secret plan to block seniors from owning guns", and the people who actually read Brietbart aren't inclined to read to deeply, and old people vote, so this will surely get shut down even though it has sweet fethall to do with senior citizens on Social Security.

And the wheel keeps on turning.

I half paid attention to that news. While I agree that people who have a mental health issue of sufficient severity should not own firearms, if I recall most of the ire was that some people believed that people (like veterans) who had allowed a spouse to be financially responsible for the household would be prohibited from owning firearms. Something that is different to preventing someone with Alzheimer's from continuing to own a firearm

**DarkLink**

Jihadin wrote:
Well, enforcing existing gun laws would help
Streamlining the system be huge factor

Seems 20 of 22 Gun Laws are not enforced
http://content.thirdway.org/publications/10/AGS_Report_-_The_Enforcement_Gap_-_Federal_Gun_Laws_Ignored.pdf

It might suprise some people here, but gun-owning NRA conservative types don't want guns in the hands of bad people either. There are a suprising number of NRA backed gun control laws that pass quietly.

The issue is, instead of focusing on the problem and trying to actually keep guns out of the hands of criminals, most gun control laws simply make it illegal to own a gun, use a gun, own gun related accessories, own ammo, etc. So the people who like to legally own guns naturally oppose this.

If pro-gun control people would stop trying to make all the guns always illegal for everyone ever until the end of time and instead focused on things like making the background check system work better, they might get somewhere. But they spend so much political capital on stupid stuff like trying to ban black rifles that conservatives don't trust them to not screw legal gun owners over. Then, everything just ends up in bipartisan gridlock.

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
But he passed the check, which is what people are saying when talking about him "legally" buying a weapon. How many people in this thread casually made "it will be interesting to see how he got the gun" comments fully expecting it to be a gun purchased in the shadow somewhere because they "knew" that he couldn't pass a background check?

They system in place, hailed as "good enough" for quite a while, simply wasn't. We have spend the last decade agreeing that mental health records need to be integrated better into the system, but nothing has been done about it.

Blame lthe lefties who freak if you say anything about the mental nutjobs in our society. But they have rights!

**d-usa**

Frazzled wrote:
d-usa wrote:
But he passed the check, which is what people are saying when talking about him "legally" buying a weapon. How many people in this thread casually made "it will be interesting to see how he got the gun" comments fully expecting it to be a gun purchased in the shadow somewhere because they "knew" that he couldn't pass a background check?

They system in place, hailed as "good enough" for quite a while, simply wasn't. We have spend the last decade agreeing that mental health records need to be integrated better into the system, but nothing has been done about it.

Blame lthe lefties who freak if you say anything about the mental nutjobs in our society. But they have rights!

Got a source for leftist freaks working to preserve the gun ownership rights of the mentally ill, or is this just more of the usual?

**Jihadin**

You weren't there. You had to be there to know or understand it

Though on 11 July 15 (edit for date)

Legislation to stop those with mental health issues from purchasing or possessing firearms was introduced Thursday.

Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut introduced the Safer Communities Act, which would temporarily prohibit people who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health institution from purchasing or possessing a gun, The Hill reports. Democratic Reps. Mike Thompson of California and Ed Perlmutter of Colorado, the leaders of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, have also backed the bill.

The legislation would also provide improvements to the mental health system in America.

"By simultaneously improving mental health care and keeping guns out of the hands of those who would use them to harm themselves or others, this legislation takes an holistic approach to this serious issue,” Blumenthal said in a statement.

Under the proposed legislation, police could temporarily take away guns from people who were recently released from a mental health facility if there is “probable cause to believe [they] pose an imminent risk of harm to self or others.”

It would also temporarily prohibit the mentally ill from purchasing new guns upon release from a facility. After one year following the release, the individual would be able to petition to get their gun rights back.

"It's important to keep guns away from individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others and instead provide them with the mental health tools and services they need,” Perlmutter said in a statement.

Calls for stricter gun control have made headlines recently in the wake of the Charleston, South Carolina, church shooting. The Safer Communities Act is believed to be in response to the tragedy that left nine people dead.

Removing guns from the hands of the mentally ill may not be a strong solution to gun violence in America, according to a recent study.

Findings published in the journal Behavioral Sciences and the Law conclude that to reduce gun injuries and deaths there should be less focus on diagnosed mental illness and more on gun owners with a history of violent behavior, The Los Angeles Times reported.

The research, which was published in April, found that of the 310 million firearms estimated to be owned by private individuals in the United States, a disproportionate amount are owned by people who are prone to angry, impulsive behavior, and have a potentially dangerous habit of keeping guns close at hand.

The study found that keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill will only make a small reduction in gun violence. Fewer than one in 10 people with anger issues that also have access to guns have ever been admitted for mental health treatment or a substance abuse problem.

“Gun violence and serious mental illness are two very important but distinct public health issues that intersect only at their edges,” said study leader Jeffrey Swanson, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University School of Medicine. “The traditional legal approach has been to prohibit firearms from involuntarily committed psychiatric patients.

"But now we have more evidence that current laws don’t necessarily keep firearms out of the hands of a lot of potentially dangerous individuals.”

Sources: The Hill, The Los Angeles Times

So how would they know if the individual in question have unregistered fire arms already?

**d-usa**

Jihadin wrote:
You weren't there. You had to be there to know or understand it

One of these days you will actually type that sentence and it will actually make a lick of sense. I'm not holding my breath that it will be anytime soon.

Though on 11 July 15 (edit for date)

Legislation to stop those with mental health issues from purchasing or possessing firearms was introduced Thursday.

Democratic Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut introduced the Safer Communities Act, which would temporarily prohibit people who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health institution from purchasing or possessing a gun, The Hill reports. Democratic Reps. Mike Thompson of California and Ed Perlmutter of Colorado, the leaders of the House Gun Violence Prevention Task Force, have also backed the bill.

The legislation would also provide improvements to the mental health system in America.

"By simultaneously improving mental health care and keeping guns out of the hands of those who would use them to harm themselves or others, this legislation takes an holistic approach to this serious issue,” Blumenthal said in a statement.

Under the proposed legislation, police could temporarily take away guns from people who were recently released from a mental health facility if there is “probable cause to believe [they] pose an imminent risk of harm to self or others.”

It would also temporarily prohibit the mentally ill from purchasing new guns upon release from a facility. After one year following the release, the individual would be able to petition to get their gun rights back.

"It's important to keep guns away from individuals who pose a threat to themselves or others and instead provide them with the mental health tools and services they need,” Perlmutter said in a statement.

Calls for stricter gun control have made headlines recently in the wake of the Charleston, South Carolina, church shooting. The Safer Communities Act is believed to be in response to the tragedy that left nine people dead.

Removing guns from the hands of the mentally ill may not be a strong solution to gun violence in America, according to a recent study.

Findings published in the journal Behavioral Sciences and the Law conclude that to reduce gun injuries and deaths there should be less focus on diagnosed mental illness and more on gun owners with a history of violent behavior, The Los Angeles Times reported.

The research, which was published in April, found that of the 310 million firearms estimated to be owned by private individuals in the United States, a disproportionate amount are owned by people who are prone to angry, impulsive behavior, and have a potentially dangerous habit of keeping guns close at hand.

The study found that keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill will only make a small reduction in gun violence. Fewer than one in 10 people with anger issues that also have access to guns have ever been admitted for mental health treatment or a substance abuse problem.

“Gun violence and serious mental illness are two very important but distinct public health issues that intersect only at their edges,” said study leader Jeffrey Swanson, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Duke University School of Medicine. “The traditional legal approach has been to prohibit firearms from involuntarily committed psychiatric patients.

"But now we have more evidence that current laws don’t necessarily keep firearms out of the hands of a lot of potentially dangerous individuals.”

Sources: The Hill, The Los Angeles Times

So how would they know if the individual in question have unregistered fire arms already?

That is the difficult question to answer. The obvious "you were committed, therefore we can search your house for guns before you get to go back home" should be off the table from the start. But I don't have any good answers from the top of my head.

I am okay with the whole "show that you no longer have a problem, get your rights restored" aspect though.

**Frazzled**

d-usa wrote:
How many states are fully sharing their records with the federal database? How are the records stored by the states? Are counties sharing them properly with the state itself? How are they transmitted? Are there difference in definitions that might prevent state convictions from properly flagging the federal system?

Plenty of areas for reform and improvements.

This is true.

**cincydooley**

I have to laugh when people are willing to infringe upon constitutional rights further to prevent an infantesimal failure rate in one instance, but not in another.

**d-usa**

Who is doing that in this instance?

**cincydooley**

If the system has cracks that is a problem with the system.

Maybe I'm misreading?

**Smacks**

cincydooley wrote:
I have to laugh when people are willing to infringe upon constitutional rights further to prevent an infantesimal failure rate in one instance, but not in another.

What was the other instance?

**Dreadclaw69**

Ouze wrote:
People falling through the cracks and then going on spree killings is pretty much the dictionary definition of the system failing.

If the system has cracks that is a problem with the system.

Was this a systemic error, or was this human error (like Dylan Roof)? How many individuals pass the NICS when they should have been denied?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
But he passed the check, which is what people are saying when talking about him "legally" buying a weapon. How many people in this thread casually made "it will be interesting to see how he got the gun" comments fully expecting it to be a gun purchased in the shadow somewhere because they "knew" that he couldn't pass a background check?

Not I. I was legitimately curious as to how someone with four methods of disqualification could pass a NICS check.

**d-usa**

cincydooley wrote:

If the system has cracks that is a problem with the system.

Maybe I'm misreading?

I admit I'm not a constitutional scholar, but if you care to clarify how that sentence shows a willingness to infringe upon constitutional rights further please enlighten me. Feel free to take that persons further comments and examples of actions that could be taken into account when making your case that this particular sentence shows a willingness to infringe upon constitutional rights further.

**Smacks**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Was this a systemic error, or was this human error (like Dylan Roof)? How many individuals pass the NICS when they should have been denied?

"Human error" can still be systemic. If humans aren't dependable then it would makes sense to try and remove that capacity to make mistakes from the system. That's what made air-travel so safe.

**d-usa**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Ouze wrote:
People falling through the cracks and then going on spree killings is pretty much the dictionary definition of the system failing.

If the system has cracks that is a problem with the system.

Was this a systemic error, or was this human error (like Dylan Roof)?

I would hope that someone could find this out, but I also doubt that we are going to.

How many individuals pass the NICS when they should have been denied?

I honestly have no idea, and I don't know how we could even find out. It could be that he is the only case, it could be that the system is pretty screwed up and it happens pretty frequently. I imagine that in the near future both sides will argue their view on how frequently it occurs.

My opinion: I have no idea how frequently it happens, but I am pretty certain that he is not the only one. He is the only one that we know about because he went on and shot up a movie theater, but that doesn't mean he is the only one. I don't think it happens that frequently and even if the system is porous enough where it could happen more often I think that most people who know that they would fail are not going to even try it. This guy might just be insane enough to where he thought there really wasn't even anything preventing him from owning one, which might be the only reason we now know these holes exist.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
But he passed the check, which is what people are saying when talking about him "legally" buying a weapon. How many people in this thread casually made "it will be interesting to see how he got the gun" comments fully expecting it to be a gun purchased in the shadow somewhere because they "knew" that he couldn't pass a background check?

Not I. I was legitimately curious as to how someone with four methods of disqualification could pass a NICS check.

Fair enough.

It really shouldn't have happened, especially if all four really applied. The mental health one is the one that we are very aware about as being a long standing problem when it comes to background check, so I don't think that one is that surprising. The other ones, if they actually apply (we know how news are), make the system even more troubling. Of course on Monday the authorities could reveal that this was all a mistake and he didn't actually pass his background check, or used a fake ID, or whatever. But if he simply lied and the system with the sole function of catching people that lie about being able to own a gun failed, then we really need to figure out why and how to keep it from happening again.

**Jihadin**

D, I think Cincy might be commenting on the article I posted.

**Ouze**

cincydooley wrote:

If the system has cracks that is a problem with the system.

Maybe I'm misreading?

I would say this is a swing and a miss, but it would be more accurate to say this is like a swing, and a miss, and your pants fall down and everyone sees your junk.

In at least 2 recent cases, it would appear people who legally were precluded from owning firearms were missed, by various factors, from being so flagged and were able to so buy firearms. These are the "cracks" in NICS "system" which we were discussing. Somehow from that, you fumbled this into an extrapolation that fixing these problems and so enforcing existing, agreed upon law is now, in your words, "willing to infringe upon constitutional rights further". Isn't the argument that we don't need any more laws, but need to enforce the existing ones? I could have sworn I read that here before.

So what is your argument here, exactly? That people who have been committed and so adjudicated as mentally defective nonetheless should be able to lawfully purchase firearms? Or that they shouldn't, but fixing NICS - a system that sometimes lets a few through anyway - is the problem?

Bold strategy, Cotton. Lets see how it works out for him

**Jihadin**

Why are we still hand jamming forms?
I had to do all my paperwork on a PC.........
print to sign.
So one digital form in the data base and one physical record of me owning a weapon
\
Edit

By doing the forms electronically one can tick off the boxes thereby not missing a step or over looking a step
If we implement like now it might take five years to see a dent in this issue

**Ouze**

Jihadin wrote:
Why are we still hand jamming forms?
I had to do all my paperwork on a PC.........
print to sign.
So one digital form in the data base and one physical record of me owning a weapon

I bought a shotgun a few weeks ago, and for the first time ever, I filled out my 4473 electronically. It was at a big box store so I don't know if this is something specific to them, or what - every other gun I've bought has been on paper.

For all I know the software is some proprietary thing that just prints the damn form out pre-populated.

I can't imagine that keeping all these pieces of paper all of the country is the most efficient way of doing it, but I presume the NRA and gun lobby will heartily resist any effort to modernize the process, using their usual mad-libs of "jackboots" and "thugs" and "registration = confiscation" and so on.

**Dreadclaw69**

Smacks wrote:
"Human error" can still be systemic. If humans aren't dependable then it would makes sense to try and remove that capacity to make mistakes from the system. That's what made air-travel so safe.

Human error typically means that the fault/error/failure was the result of a human's actions. Systemic failure is where the system itself is at fault, typically because it is poorly designed/concieved/executed. That was the distinction I was speaking of, and what I was attempting to ascertain.

d-usa wrote:
I would hope that someone could find this out, but I also doubt that we are going to.
. . .

I honestly have no idea, and I don't know how we could even find out. It could be that he is the only case, it could be that the system is pretty screwed up and it happens pretty frequently. I imagine that in the near future both sides will argue their view on how frequently it occurs.

I think if there were answers to these questions we could look at addressing whatever the flaws are that presently exist - whether it be training, resources, etc.

d-usa wrote:
Fair enough.

It really shouldn't have happened, especially if all four really applied. The mental health one is the one that we are very aware about as being a long standing problem when it comes to background check, so I don't think that one is that surprising. The other ones, if they actually apply (we know how news are), make the system even more troubling. Of course on Monday the authorities could reveal that this was all a mistake and he didn't actually pass his background check, or used a fake ID, or whatever. But if he simply lied and the system with the sole function of catching people that lie about being able to own a gun failed, then we really need to figure out why and how to keep it from happening again.

The fact that we have someone who has four offences that should have prevented gun ownership is a cause for significant concern. The mental health issues will always be a challenge to successfully integrate with HIPPA requirements. However the other three should not have enabled him to pass a background check. It will be interesting to see if anything else develops from this.

**Ouze**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
However the other three should not have enabled him to pass a background check. It will be interesting to see if anything else develops from this.

I agree... but I doubt anything will come of it. We'll forget by tomorrow most likely.

**Dreadclaw69**

Ouze wrote:
I agree... but I doubt anything will come of it. We'll forget by tomorrow most likely.

Given that two incidents (this and Church Shooting) have happened in close proximity to one another, with failures of the NICS both times I would like to think that attention is being paid.

**d-usa**

We will see. I would hope that something gets done, and I think this is one of those areas where we can make some progress on improving safety (even if it is just a small area in the grand scheme of things) without really running into "pro/anti gun controll" issues. There is really nothing here that requires new restrictions, just find out where the current system is failing and fix those holes.

**Smacks**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Smacks wrote:
"Human error" can still be systemic. If humans aren't dependable then it would make sense to try and remove that capacity to make mistakes from the system. That's what made air-travel so safe.

Human error typically means that the fault/error/failure was the result of a human's actions. Systemic failure is where the system itself is at fault, typically because it is poorly designed/concieved/executed. That was the distinction I was speaking of, and what I was attempting to ascertain.

Oh okay, because it sounded like you might be trying to pass the buck.

**cincydooley**

I'd posit background checks are as unconstitutional as disenfranchising felons and parolees.

But if we're going to allow those breaches of the constitution, I think the argument could be made that requiring an ID to vote is justifiable. I mean, voter fraud is as occurs at a higher microscopic percentage than disqualified gun purchasers purchasing guns through legal means and then going on shooting sprees, no?

**Dreadclaw69**

d-usa wrote:
We will see. I would hope that something gets done, and I think this is one of those areas where we can make some progress on improving safety (even if it is just a small area in the grand scheme of things) without really running into "pro/anti gun controll" issues. There is really nothing here that requires new restrictions, just find out where the current system is failing and fix those holes.

That's my opinion of this also. Efforts should be spent looking to work out where the system has gone wrong, and both sides of the debate should be able to support that.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Smacks wrote:
Oh okay, because it sounded like you might be trying to pass the buck.

No

**Ouze**

cincydooley wrote:
I'd posit background checks are as unconstitutional as disenfranchising felons and parolees.

But if we're going to allow those breaches of the constitution, I think the argument could be made that requiring an ID to vote is justifiable. I mean, voter fraud is as occurs at a higher microscopic percentage than disqualified gun purchasers purchasing guns through legal means and then going on shooting sprees, no?

The background checks aren't disenfranchising felons. They're not eligible to own firearms by statute. If you want to argue that felons should have their 2nd amendment rights restored after finishing their sentence, that's a pretty good argument and I think I can generally get on board with that pending the details. But the actual checks themselves aren't unconstitutional.

That whataboutism in the latter argument, fumbling wildly towards Voter ID as an equivalent, is fairly weak sauce.

NICS denied, in 2010, 1.2% of all applications, usually because of felony convictions. About 55,000 stand, and the remainder successfully appealed. That's in a single year, the only year I cared enough about this argument to research. 1.2% of 6 million is a lot of rejections. Pretty significant, I think.

In 2012, there were 118 million votes cast. Are you claiming that in-person vote fraud is comparable, on the order of 1.25... that nearly a million and a half people committed in-person voter fraud of the type voterID would prevent? Because in the 12 years prior to the election, only like 10 cases have been proven, so I suspect your argument is pretty bad. Even if there are, lets say, 100 times more instances of in-person voter fraud then that - lets say a thousand cases every election - we're still talking about .001% of the vote. And of course, it's less than that, because it's not really 100 times worse than reported.

Even if, as that article states, the numbers provided are incomplete - it's still pretty clear by any rational measure that in-person voter fraud of the type voter ID would "fix" is statistically nonexistent, whereas NICS provably prevents tens of thousands of felons from buying guns every year.

We should start another thread if we wish to restart this perennial favorite.

**Dreadwinter**

cincydooley wrote:
I have to laugh when people are willing to infringe upon constitutional rights further to prevent an infantesimal failure rate in one instance, but not in another.

Yeah, lets not attempt to mold the constitution to fit todays society. I mean, things now are pretty much the exact same as they were when it was written.

**Smacks**

cincydooley wrote:
I have to laugh when people are willing to infringe upon constitutional rights further to prevent an infantesimal failure rate in one instance, but not in another.

The chance of needing (and being able to use) a gun in self defence is also infinitesimal, but that doesn't stop you claiming that it is important.

With respect, dogmatically clinging to a 200 year old "right", to something that you shouldn't (and probably won't) ever need, in the face of quite widespread misuse, and people dying, is (to put the shoe on the other foot) about the same amount of "laughable".

**Grey Templar**

Smacks wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
I have to laugh when people are willing to infringe upon constitutional rights further to prevent an infantesimal failure rate in one instance, but not in another.
The chances of needing (and being able to use) a gun in self defence are also infinitesimal, but that doesn't stop you claiming that it's important.

With respect, dogmatically clinging to a 200 year old "right", to something that you shouldn't (and probably won't) ever need, in the face of quite widespread misuse, and people dying, is about the same amount of laughable. If you care to put the shoe on the other foot that is.

Except this right is actually extremely important. Its the right that guarantees all the others. The fact you don't need to exercise it all that much is proof that it works. That is why it will never be obsolete and should always remain.

It is a safeguard against tyranny, and as a bonus it also protects you from criminals.