Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by GatorGrowl, Sep 16, 2013.
So the question still remains: How do we prevent the mentally ill from getting hold of guns?
Examples of attempts to politicize this tragedy:
It's because it's a gun-free zone!! No, not really.
And it's gun-free because of Clinton!!! No, not really.
For example, you've got Oliver North on Fox (natch) claiming that Clinton issued an executive order in March 1993 making military bases gun free zones. That is, quite simply, false. Either complete ignorance or a bald-faced lie on North's part.
I'll take a swing. Two things on this.
In this particular case, as is true with most security matters, insiders with access pose the greatest threat. This guy had multiple red flags. His run-ins with the law were well documented - two involved discharging a firearm. His military discharge status and the circumstances surrounding that status change are noteworthy. Police recently warned the Navy that he was unstable after his extremely bizarre paranoid episodes. And he was being treated for serious mental health issues.
This guy should have never had his military discharge status 'upgraded' to honorably. He probably should have had his clearance and base access credentials temporarily suspended based on what the Police told the Navy recently. Based on his mental health status and prior issues with illegal/inappropriate discharge of a firearm, he shouldn't be able to legally own a gun, or buy one from a licensed dealer.
In short, if you demonstrate, as this guy did, that you do not possess the judgement to responsibly and legally own a firearm, you shouldn't.
It's past time to look at any legal barriers, perhaps some provisions of HIPPA, that would prevent extremely important mental health information from being considered when a person is subjected to the background check when buying a firearm. This is especially true if, combined with mental impairment, you also have history of illegal/irresponsible behavior documented in your past involving firearms. That should be an automatic disqualifier for purshase or ownership.
Failures of governmental agencies to act on ample and legitimate warning signs should not be shouldered by the vast majority of responsible gun owners. This guy had a history. He was mentally ill. His employer was warned by law enforcement. Do not look at me as the problem. The problem is the system that seems reluctant to deal with mentally ill people. This is now the third whack job with ample warning signs to engage in mass murder.
On a mil installation like that, it would likely have been mil police, not civilian police, and the mil police would have been armed from the armory which I can guarantee you would have M16s or M4s and not ARs.
That said, I do know of some local police that use ARs, but they don't carry them around and generally have them in lieu of the typical Mossberg or 870P in the trunk of their cruiser. In many situations they are individually owned but approved for dept use, not department supplied, and thus why they are semi-auto versus full. The ones that carry them around are SWAT and theirs are full auto.
Either way, we aren't going to get factual reporting on weaponry from the ignorant news media. Funny how they will bring in experts to defer to on everything else, but want to continue their poor record of fact checking when it comes to weapons.
Just based on reports I was watching last night this appears to be a major failure of those who were charged with doing background checks.
Absolutely agreed. The fact that this guy's background check showed up clean given his history of irresponsible gun use and obvious mental issues shows not a problem with the background check system itself, but with its inputs. There were multiple failures by the LE community, psychiatric community, and his friends and family to act in either getting an arrest and conviction in the system, a declaration of incompetence, or simply putting in a call to the NICS to have him flagged as a possible risk.
Agreed. All we need is to make it SOP to flag the individual in the NICS system by a medical professional for psychiatric reasons with clear guidelines for when it is warranted to do so. The data input in the system doesn't have to go into specifics. There does need to be a reasonable appeals process, but I don't think you will find any gun owner that will object to this.
This. As said above, there were multiple failures by the people around him. And of note, this again happened in a gun-free zone full of sitting duck targets and little in the way of trained professional armed security. IMO, it is completely irresponsible to name any place a gun free zone without adequate on-site security with the training and equipment to enforce such a measure. It's becoming abundantly clear that all such gun-free zones create is an illusion of security just waiting to be shattered by an armed assailant. Average LE response times ensure that ANY such situation is going to have multiple casualties, and history shows that making a place a gun-free zone makes it a target for these types of incidents, well over 90% of mass shootings in the last 20 years has taken place in these locations.
The only deterrant to an individual such as this is a credible belief that they may be removed from the population before they have the ability to carry out their mission. The only way such a credible belief exists is when there is a reasonable probability of encountering armed resistance, whether from a responsible gun carrying citizen, armed security, and/or law enforcement.
First the link is heavily biased by you obviously didn't read the article. Just because someplace is a gun free zone doesn't mean its gun free. Security usually has it, and yes Clinton issued an executive order that prohibited military personel from carrying weapons on base if they were not part of their immediate duty. Ie going to drill, war, or police.
Moreso a failure of those who were charged with reporting inputs into the background check system. Those doing the background checks can check him all they want, but he was a citizen, had never been charged and convicted, never been adjudicated mentally incompetent, never had a restraining order, and never been dishonorably discharged. If the information never makes it to the NICS background check system, what should the examiners do?
First of all, here's Clinton's executive orders from 1993. Please point to the one you're talking about.
Second, I did read it. And it explained quite the issue quite clearly.
In the fwiw category I understood the news to say they did not have any problem finding our some of the things that were not in the reports. How in-depth of a check was required would have a bearing on it too but I think they need to at least check behind the checkers to see if they were part of the failure.
There are several problems with the data in that study. The data sets simply count any shooting with 4 or more victims, no matter what the cause (i.e. you get domestic violence, gang-related, robberies, arguments, and drug-related shootings included too where the intent wasn't necessarily mass murder), and it counts the shooting as not being in a gun-free zone if even part of the incident occured in a place where someone could legally carry. For example, they don't count the Newton shooting as occuring in a gun-free zone because Lanza started his shooting at his mother's home where he killed her before proceeding to the school. Additionally, Holmes' theater shooting, for instance, wasn't a federal gun-free zone, but the theater did not allow firearms and thus Colorado state law prohibited concealed carry in the theater.
Considering the source, it's pretty clear the study shows bias and was designed to dilute data unfavorable to the conclusion the data collectors wanted to reach.
The checkers can't simply go on google and rely on press clippings to get their information. Their data must be reported and substantiated. They can only prohibit someone from buying a gun when they have reported and substantiated information that the person meets one of the following conditions (from wikipedia):
The shooter did not meet any of those conditions and therefore was not a prohibited person.
Guess we are talking about two different things. I'm not referring to his purchasing the gun but rather being hired and given clearance to the base.
In that case I fully agree