Oregon shootings: The map that shows all 264 mass shootings in America this year

[-relo- 105]

i'm going to vote that whatever sousuke thinks is worth a try is probably a good bet. he's realistic and knows way more about the laws than i do. unless he wants to arm teachers and what not cause i'm not down with that. i won't send my kid to school with armed teachers. that's about it, that's my one big stipulation. please try not to infringe on the rights of those who don't want to live in a war zone masquerading as pleasantville.

ground broke. murica's new gun laws fantasy court. go!

warzone... good one.

It's viable, its just not an idea that's compatible with a free society.

I think it needs to be explained why the already existing, armed police are not sufficient. Instead of roping in retirees with itchy trigger fingers, why not start with what already exists?

the problem is I could explain it to you again & again. I just can't help you understand it.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

But you don't explain it, and haven't.

[Sousuke 1,214]

i'm going to vote that whatever sousuke thinks is worth a try is probably a good bet. he's realistic and knows way more about the laws than i do. unless he wants to arm teachers and what not cause i'm not down with that. i won't send my kid to school with armed teachers. that's about it, that's my one big stipulation. please try not to infringe on the rights of those who don't want to live in a war zone masquerading as pleasantville.

ground broke. murica's new gun laws fantasy court. go!

I think alot of what is proposed does very little if anything to help a situation like Oregon.

I feel like a bit of a traitor saying this, but I do think the German 2002 law requiring people 25 and under to get go through an evaluation would do the most. All of the shooters were in that age group. I don't know, just thinking practically.

I'm torn on multiple levels about this though. It probably wouldn't pass constitutional muster, it can be abused, most of our armed forces are this age group. But at the same time, I recognize that if the mass shootings continue at this rate, we will eventually lose our rights all together.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Sousuke

[Sousuke 1,214]

Another thought I just had. Do you think someone like this Chris person or the Aurora shooter would have passed a medical evaluation?

I keep hearing that these people had Aspergers, but then doctors say people with the condition are not statistically more violent. Is it a factor?

[-relo- 105]

But you don't explain it, and haven't.

wow.

the military patrolling the streets would be the police state you mentioned.

you're not confiscating peoples guns.

the current police presence isn't cutting it.

explained again. you still don't understand. do you? I told you it wouldn't help you understand.

[decocker 7,198]

I think alot of what is proposed does very little if anything to help a situation like Oregon.

I feel like a bit of a traitor saying this, but I do think the German 2002 law requiring people 25 and under to get go through an evaluation would do the most. All of the shooters were in that age group. I don't know, just thinking practically.

I'm torn on multiple levels about this though. It probably wouldn't pass constitutional muster, it can be abused, most of our armed forces are this age group. But at the same time, I recognize that if the mass shootings continue at this rate, we will eventually lose our rights all together.

what do you think about a federal wait period?

and what do you think can be done about numnuts who keeps guns in closets, unlocked, or on the front seat of locked car (with their toddler inside) etcetc.. Outside of criminal charges/civil suits, what would encourage gun owners to keep their guns out of reach?

and i agree, eventually we will lose our rights to legally own, but i still can't see the majority of americans willingly giving up their guns. i can't tell you how many times a day i hear how willing some are to die for their guns (put nicely, the right to protect their family). they'll just keep them illegally (drug war has demonstrated this nicely).

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

wow.

the military patrolling the streets would be the police state you mentioned.

you're not confiscating peoples guns.

the current police presence isn't cutting it.

explained again. you still don't understand. do you? I told you it wouldn't help you understand.

Here's the point.

When one group of people with guns specifically tasked with preventing crime doesn't "cut it", as you put it, what makes you believe that appointing a group of unaccountable randoms with the same mandate will have more of an effect?

What's the proof that this will have any positive benefit and won't say, complicate an already complicated situation?

Surely if you believe more armed professionals = more law and order you'd be better off spending more money on a heavier police presence. At least the police (and mimitary) are subject to some form of oversight.

Of course youre right that that amounts to a police state, so naturally that's not something you'd go for - even though the net result is the same: more guns in the hands of supposedly benevolent people.

If you're confused, I'll lay it out for you.

No I don't think a police state is a good idea.

No I don't believe that the government should deploy the military on the streets.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Trumplestiltskin

[decocker 7,198]

Another thought I just had. Do you think someone like this Chris person or the Aurora shooter would have passed a medical evaluation?

I keep hearing that these people had Aspergers, but then doctors say people with the condition are not statistically more violent. Is it a factor?

i think someone with aspergers could pass a psycological evaluation, but you're right the majority of aspergers patients are not violent.

the aurora guy was seeing a therapist that specializes in schizophrenia..i don't know if they ever announced his official diagnosis.

Schizophrenia is reported to affect about 1.1 percent of adults in the United States, according to the National Institutes of Health. Of those, people, 60 percent have sought health care services for the condition in the last year.

The condition's characteristics include having delusions and hallucinations, as well as withdrawal, lack of emotion and motivation and attention and memory problems, according to the Mayo Clinic. People with paranoid schizophrenia, which is a specific kind of schizophrenia, may hear voices that aren't there, feel anxiety and anger and believe that people are out to get them.

To be clear, there has been no official word yet on why Holmes was seeking Fenton's care, or if he had been diagnosed, or was being treated, for a mental condition.

ABC News reported that there were no clear signs that Holmes had a mental condition, and that he also didn't have a previous criminal record.

"In most of these cases, these are not what you would call a psychopath or a sociopath, as hard as it may be to believe," psychologist Dr. Marisa Randazzo told ABC News. "These are often folks who often up onto this point have been functioning fairly normally but went through a series of events, a series of losses, ended up in absolute despair or desperation."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/30/james-holmes-schizophrenia-mental-health_n_1720163.html

[Sousuke 1,214]

what do you think about a federal wait period?

and what do you think can be done about numnuts who keeps guns in closets, unlocked, or on the front seat of locked car (with their toddler inside) etcetc.. Outside of criminal charges/civil suits, what would encourage gun owners to keep their guns out of reach?

and i agree, eventually we will lose our rights to legally own, but i still can't see the majority of americans willingly giving up their guns. i can't tell you how many times a day i hear how willing some are to die for their guns (put nicely, the right to protect their family). they'll just keep them illegally (drug war has demonstrated this nicely).

My state has a wait period of 10 days. I don't have an issue with it. I'm sure its kept a few suicidal people alive in the end because the act of suicide is a very time-sensitive occurrence. An extra day can change someone's heart on the issue.

I don't think a safe should be mandated, but have no issue with heavy criminal charges against someone who doesn't keep the firearm safe from children or say a person with a violent felony within the household.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Another thought I just had. Do you think someone like this Chris person or the Aurora shooter would have passed a medical evaluation?

I keep hearing that these people had Aspergers, but then doctors say people with the condition are not statistically more violent. Is it a factor?

It's a factor, but perhaps not always meaningful. A person with a mental health condition may have violent tendencies or they may not. No two schizophrenics are alike, for example. I'd say developing a test that picks up that sort of thing would be almost impossible, short of some documented issue in their past - and even then it may not be a reflection of who they are now.

All in all its a bit of a logistical nightmare. You'd really be better off with a system that is able to diagnose and treat people at an earlier stage - how you do that though... And who pays for it...

Mental health in relation to mass shootings is little more than lip service.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Trumplestiltskin

[decocker 7,198]

My state has a wait period of 10 days. I don't have an issue with it. I'm sure its kept a few suicidal people alive in the end because the act of suicide is a very time-sensitive occurrence. An extra day can change someone's heart on the issue.

I don't think a safe should be mandated, but have no issue with heavy criminal charges against someone who doesn't keep the firearm safe from children or say a person with a violent felony within the household.

my state doesn't have a waiting period. i just had to look that up. good to know.

what sucks about only heavy criminal charges is that someone is usually already dead or wounded for that to happen.

[Sousuke 1,214]

my state doesn't have a waiting period. i just had to look that up. good to know.

what sucks about only heavy criminal charges is that someone is usually already dead or wounded for that to happen.

If you mandate something like a safe it becomes a barrier to ownership from cost, so would likely be stricken down.

I do agree that a safe is important and all owners should have them.

[Póg mo 1,749]

how so? I go many places with armed guards on duty...banks, concerts, sporting events, etc.

what are your ideas, w/o taking peoples rights away?

Well that's certainly one way to reduce unemployment. Hey, are you planning to pay extra taxes? That's great if you are.

[decocker 7,198]

Well that's certainly one way to reduce unemployment. Hey, are you planning to pay extra taxes? That's great if you are.

i'd prefer my extra taxes go toward public education. seems like more actual bang for the buck.

[-relo- 105]

Here's the point.

When one group of people with guns specifically tasked with preventing crime doesn't "cut it", as you put it, what makes you believe that appointing a group of unaccountable randoms with the same mandate will have more of an effect?

What's the proof that this will have any positive benefit and won't say, complicate an already complicated situation?

Surely if you believe more armed professionals = more law and order you'd be better off spending more money on a heavier police presence. At least the police (and mimitary) are subject to some form of oversight.

Of course youre right that that amounts to a police state, so naturally that's not something you'd go for - even though the net result is the same: more guns in the hands of supposedly benevolent people.

If you're confused, I'll lay it out for you.

No I don't think a police state is a good idea.

No I don't believe that the government should deploy the military on the streets.

here's the point you're apparently are not willing to come to grips with yet. the constitution grants the right to keep & bear arms. we're going to need an idea that does NOT infringe on peoples rights. do you have an idea?

Well that's certainly one way to reduce unemployment. Hey, are you planning to pay extra taxes? That's great if you are.

i'm not trying to promote gun free zones. the people promoting gun free zones need to provide & pay for security.

i'd prefer my extra taxes go toward public education. seems like more actual bang for the buck.

you could always donate extra cash if you'd like.