Uvalde Texas Killing

[Timjoebillybob]

For Christ Sake Man, give it a rest.
WTF

What? I'm just asking your opinion. You are the one that stated, "One of the huge problems since nics has been, doctors dont want to forward mental health problems to the State and the State doesn't want to forward information to nics for starters. Hence those with problems arnt prohibited and cruise through state and federal checks. How many shooters in the last 20 years have bought from ffl's and with years of mental issues passed a nics check or checks."

Along with quoting an article talking about how a good bit of mass shooters have mental illnesses. And I have another question regarding that article, of the 28 that were diagnosed with mental illness how many were diagnosed prior to the shootings? From this article it sounds like none of them were, if that is the case shouldn't all private ownership be prohibited in case the person has an diagnosed mental disorder?

Study suggests unmedicated, untreated brain illness is likely in mass shooters

The first analysis of medical evidence on domestic mass shooters in the US finds that a large majority of perpetrators have psychiatric disorders for which they have received no medication or other treatment, reports a study in the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology. The journal is published...

www.eurekalert.org

While I'm inclined to agree with you in theory, what do you say about the violent-weapons felon who's served his time? Technically he's free. Should he be able to carry? Just trying to clarify your thoughts on this, because I'm not sure myself what the right answer is.

.

Short answer, Yes.

Longer answer, If they are so dangerous they can't be allowed to legally own firearms, they are too dangerous to be allowed to roam free. If they are allowed to roam free, they should have all the rights of a free man.

 

[cbhausen]

What? I'm just asking your opinion. You are the one that stated, "One of the huge problems since nics has been, doctors dont want to forward mental health problems to the State and the State doesn't want to forward information to nics for starters. Hence those with problems arnt prohibited and cruise through state and federal checks. How many shooters in the last 20 years have bought from ffl's and with years of mental issues passed a nics check or checks."

Along with quoting an article talking about how a good bit of mass shooters have mental illnesses. And I have another question regarding that article, of the 28 that were diagnosed with mental illness how many were diagnosed prior to the shootings? From this article it sounds like none of them were, if that is the case shouldn't all private ownership be prohibited in case the person has an diagnosed mental disorder?

Study suggests unmedicated, untreated brain illness is likely in mass shooters

The first analysis of medical evidence on domestic mass shooters in the US finds that a large majority of perpetrators have psychiatric disorders for which they have received no medication or other treatment, reports a study in the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology. The journal is published...

www.eurekalert.org

Short answer, Yes.

Longer answer, If they are so dangerous they can't be allowed to legally own firearms, they are too dangerous to be allowed to roam free. If they are allowed to roam free, they should have all the rights of a free man.

 

[cbhausen]

Your longer answer is spot-on!

 

[ed1838]

I have heard of a couple more active shooters after this. Last one at a Walmart in Ohio. I think this will keep happening till they get their anti gun plan into action. I think there is a lot more going on than we know. Remember during prohibition the Government poisoned alcohol.

I have lost track of how many has happened seems daily now

 

[ChristianPatriot]

Right on cue

 

[flatlander]

Right on cue

**** these stupid mother****ers

 

[jamil]

What? I'm just asking your opinion. You are the one that stated, "One of the huge problems since nics has been, doctors dont want to forward mental health problems to the State and the State doesn't want to forward information to nics for starters. Hence those with problems arnt prohibited and cruise through state and federal checks. How many shooters in the last 20 years have bought from ffl's and with years of mental issues passed a nics check or checks."

Along with quoting an article talking about how a good bit of mass shooters have mental illnesses. And I have another question regarding that article, of the 28 that were diagnosed with mental illness how many were diagnosed prior to the shootings? From this article it sounds like none of them were, if that is the case shouldn't all private ownership be prohibited in case the person has an diagnosed mental disorder?

Study suggests unmedicated, untreated brain illness is likely in mass shooters

The first analysis of medical evidence on domestic mass shooters in the US finds that a large majority of perpetrators have psychiatric disorders for which they have received no medication or other treatment, reports a study in the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology. The journal is published...

www.eurekalert.org

Short answer, Yes.

Longer answer, If they are so dangerous they can't be allowed to legally own firearms, they are too dangerous to be allowed to roam free. If they are allowed to roam free, they should have all the rights of a free man.

That’s a copout answer. It’s not a crime to be dangerous. It’s a crime to harm people. If they served their sentence, let them go. If society thinks they’re still dangerous, then what? Put them back in jail? What justifies that? What new criminal Justice theory is that?

I’ve heard your line of reasoning a lot in libertarian circles. And I think it’s wack. Or maybe you mean bring back the mental wards. But chances are, they’re just violent, and not necessarily mentally ill.

C’mon man. I hope you can fill in the blanks that might make this idea make sense. Because “if they’re too dangerous to own firearms they’re too dangerous to be free” is nonsense.

 

[drillsgt]

Right on cue

It's funny how people think anything was 'banned' and unavailable after the AWB, if anything the AWB was the catalyst for all the 'AR' manufacturing companies springing up and innovation we see today. No manufacturer at the time stopped making their rifles.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

That’s a copout answer. It’s not a crime to be dangerous. It’s a crime to harm people. If they served their sentence, let them go. If society thinks they’re still dangerous, then what? Put them back in jail? What justifies that? What new criminal Justice theory is that?

I’ve heard your line of reasoning a lot in libertarian circles. And I think it’s wack. Or maybe you mean bring back the mental wards. But chances are, they’re just violent, and not necessarily mentally ill.

C’mon man. I hope you can fill in the blanks that might make this idea make sense. Because “if they’re too dangerous to own firearms they’re too dangerous to be free” is nonsense.

I'll disagree that it's a copout answer. If society thinks they are too dangerous then they can petition their legislators to increase the penalty for those convicted of a crime. And I'm not talking ex post facto, it would have to be increased prior to the conviction.

I agree that being dangerous is not a crime, in fact I would argue that it can be a virtue. Heck I'd say the reason for carrying a personal defensive weapon, whether it be a gun, knife, club, whatever is to make that person more dangerous if they need to be. And that is not a bad thing.

But once they have served their time and are again free men(and women), they should be afforded all rights of a free man(and woman).

As for mental wards, I can see a place for them. Generally for those who have been convicted of a crime but found to be mentally defective. Although I'm leery of that as well, someone commits a crime of violence that carries let's say 5-10 yrs in prison but they are found mentally defective and they can be locked up for an indeterminate length of time quite possibly much longer than they could be sentenced to prison. Yeah I can see that being abused.

 

[actaeon277]

Right on cue

And nobody calls him out on the lies.
At least not where people will hear.

 

[rooster]

calling it now, this ends like Las Vegas shooting. Big report silently dropped that explains the “facts” as those who wrote it see them and gives zero explanation of possible motives or connections to any group/ people who helped/ convinced them to do it.


Over 150 pages of tells us nothing in that report. https://www.lvmpd.com/en-us/Documents/1_October_AAR_Final_06062019.pdf

 

[jbombelli]

While I'm inclined to agree with you in theory, what do you say about the violent-weapons felon who's served his time? Technically he's free. Should he be able to carry? Just trying to clarify your thoughts on this, because I'm not sure myself what the right answer is.

.

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me, yes. He should be able to carry. His life to him is as valuable as mine is to me, and he has the right to protect it. And further, I can't in good faith condemn someone for doing the same thing I do every day. And lastly, I'm not living my life in fear of some random bad guy with a gun. I'm armed, I pay attention to my surroundings, and whatever happens, that's the way it goes.

 

[churchmouse]

Its getting a bit tense in here peoples.

 

[BigRed]

 

[thunderchicken]

Very well stated

 

[BigRed]

Very well stated

We live in a fallen world.

Charlatans of all stripes will make promises of safety in exchange for Liberty.

They cannot deliver, but can only take...they too live in the fallen world.

An axe blow awaits.

 

[thunderchicken]

We live in a fallen world.

Charlatans of all stripes will make promises of safety in exchange for Liberty.

They cannot deliver, but can only take...they too live in the fallen world.

An axe blow awaits.

I was just starting high school when the ban was being discussed/debated. Like most at that age, I didn't pay too much attention to the news. But she is spot on

 

[nipprdog]

My suspicion is that to release all the info would involve discussing the m249b, where it came from and why he had one.

WTF?????

 

[justacog]

Beware mental health evals for firearms:

Therapy Needed For The Non-Woke

As people critical of woke orthodoxy face more antagonism, they may need psychotherapy, but providers often mistreat non-woke patients.

thefederalist.com

 

[justacog]

This is probably the best article I've read on the issue of gun control. It should probably be nailed to some front doors:

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/06/moral-idiocy-gun-control-daniel-greenfield/