Oregon CC shooting

[CitizenBBN]

The gun show loophole is more encompassing than actual gun shows. It includes the entire secondary market and private sales that don't require background checks. There's the 40% number thrown out there, but most people don't think that is accurate. Even if that number is as low as 10-15%, which you would be hard to find people that believe that(at least a majority of people), that number is too high and certainly qualifies as a loophole, and is certainly not a myth.

Remember the vast majority of those transfers are between people who know each other,which really changes the equation. That includes transfers between family, friends, etc.

Now with the internet it has expanded the number of non-related transfers betwene private people, they post on facebook or wherever then meet in person to buy/sell, but in truth that's still a small number compared to all gun transfers b/c it's a) riskier, and b) more trouble in many cases.

I'm not saying those transfers aren't out there, but it's a lot lower than you might think. Of those we'd want to check, the transfers between strangers hooking up to buy/sell, what are the chances they'll obey a law to do checks? Some will, many won't. One reason they're going that route is to stay off the radar, and they don't believe in the government tracking what they are doing on principle.

One thing we could do is change the law on NICS checks to allow for voluntary checks. Right now as a FFL it's actually illegal for me to run a check on anyone not buying a gun from me. If you wanted to sell your gun to Joe and Joe was willing to be checked, I still couldn't do it without you transferring the gun to me, then me transferring to Joe. FFLs dont' want that hassle. But if we were to allow for checks for private transfers on a voluntary basis we'd get a lot of them, certainly most that would obey a required law, without having to make it a law.

[jazyd]

Training takes over when events like this happen. That's why these guys run to the sound of the gunfire.
And it's not that they're fearless, because I can tell you from experience that fear is there, whispering to you that this might be bad, but you do it anyway, because if you can save even one life then the training and effort and the fear and the adrenaline rush and the actual event all become crystal clear in your mind, and all that matters is stopping whatever madness is happening.
We MUST confront evil wherever we find it, and crush it and destroy it, for the sake of our families and our communities that we live in. Sometimes, like these times, it just happens because the circumstances favor the event happening (read: GUN FREE ZONES), and the desires of evil people overtake the lives of good, innocent people. That is the price we pay for living in a free society.
Our current POTUS has this all wrong, just like most everything else he believes. He is a liberal idiot, raised by liberal idiots, mentored by liberal idiots and Communists, and schooled by liberal idiots and Communists. He has lived a sheltered, privileged life and really has no idea what daily life is like for most of us. And he is too stupid to see that his way doesn't work for us. That, or he just doesn't give a damn about anything except his precious outdated and outmoded mindset, and 'making' us conform to his will.
Not. Going. To. Happen.

Sun, you hit him on the end. He knows it won't work nor does he care. All he cares about is getting rid of guns by any means which promotes his liberal agenda and helps his liberal buddies. He knows what he saying is a big lie but he also knows most voters on his side are too stupid to know the truth nor will they investigate it to find the truth.

Let me give you a perfect example of uninformed voters, the ones Obama and his ilk love. In our primaries in Aug for all offices in Miss including governor the democrats had 3 people running to be their candidate in the general election. The top candidate was a black female lawyer. Second was a black female doctor. The third candidate was a black male truck driver. Truck driver did not tell his family he put his name in the hat, his mom laughed thst night and said she voted for a candidate with his name. Candidate didn't even vote because he had a load of sweet potatoes to Haul up east. He spent no money, no speeches. Guess who won the primary with 142,000 votes? The guy no one knew and left the media scrambling to find him. Still haven't heard from him and election is a month off

That is who Obama is targeting. And he and the rest of the liberal politicians know they are there by the millions

[jazyd]

IMO, I don't believe it makes a bit of difference if a school or whatever is gun free zone or guns everywhere zone, when a person is mentally unstable like this person was , all they want to do is kill, they are full of evil and in most cases they then committ suicide. His objective was to kill Christians. The conn shooter wanted to kill children at a school he felt slighted him.. They cannot think logically and IMO a gun free zone is not part of their thought process.

They kill, then end their own life to rid themselves of the inner pain. The only thing that could have prevented "some" of those kids was if that teacher had a gun or one of the students. The teacher was killed first so he could not have helped.

It is something that happened and unfortunately for everyone the government doesn't care about those with mental health problems and refuse to provide help for them

[KeithKSR]

The gun show loophole is more encompassing than actual gun shows. It includes the entire secondary market and private sales that don't require background checks. There's the 40% number thrown out there, but most people don't think that is accurate. Even if that number is as low as 10-15%, which you would be hard to find people that believe that(at least a majority of people), that number is too high and certainly qualifies as a loophole, and is certainly not a myth.

These mass shootings have not come by way of a secondary market. Anyone who thinks forcing background checks on law abiding citizens will keep criminals from obtaining firearms is fantasizing. If the logic they use actually worked there would be no illicit drug trade in the U.S.

[KeithKSR]

Remember the vast majority of those transfers are between people who know each other,which really changes the equation. That includes transfers between family, friends, etc.

Now with the internet it has expanded the number of non-related transfers betwene private people, they post on facebook or wherever then meet in person to buy/sell, but in truth that's still a small number compared to all gun transfers b/c it's a) riskier, and b) more trouble in many cases.

I'm not saying those transfers aren't out there, but it's a lot lower than you might think. Of those we'd want to check, the transfers between strangers hooking up to buy/sell, what are the chances they'll obey a law to do checks? Some will, many won't. One reason they're going that route is to stay off the radar, and they don't believe in the government tracking what they are doing on principle.

One thing we could do is change the law on NICS checks to allow for voluntary checks. Right now as a FFL it's actually illegal for me to run a check on anyone not buying a gun from me. If you wanted to sell your gun to Joe and Joe was willing to be checked, I still couldn't do it without you transferring the gun to me, then me transferring to Joe. FFLs dont' want that hassle. But if we were to allow for checks for private transfers on a voluntary basis we'd get a lot of them, certainly most that would obey a required law, without having to make it a law.

Another reason face to face sales among non-acquaintances are small in number is due to people not wanting a stolen firearm dropped on them. I belong to multiple closed groups that sell/trade firearms. Trades are far more frequent than outright sales, and people will primarily deal only with people that within their locale, and follow state laws regarding private sales only to instate residents.

[CitizenBBN]

Another reason face to face sales among non-acquaintances are small in number is due to people not wanting a stolen firearm dropped on them. I belong to multiple closed groups that sell/trade firearms. Trades are far more frequent than outright sales, and people will primarily deal only with people that within their locale, and follow state laws regarding private sales only to instate residents.

The vast majority of gun owners are very responsible, and don't want guns in the hands of criminals or lunatics even more than anti-gun folks, and don't want to buy stolen guns.

those deals are out there, but I'd contend those people by and large would ignore a law requiring checks, as they ignore a lot of other existing laws.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

These mass shootings have not come by way of a secondary market. Anyone who thinks forcing background checks on law abiding citizens will keep criminals from obtaining firearms is fantasizing. If the logic they use actually worked there would be no illicit drug trade in the U.S.

Several of these mass shootings have come from the background check process failing, with guns falling into the hands of people that were never intended by law to possess them. From there, kids are getting access to them, in some cases and committing these killings. If the background check process is failing at times and guns are falling into the wrong people's hands, then what do you think is happening when there is no check at all? We can't just assume that every transaction is between the mentally capable and the law abiding. That's the fantasy. It's just wrong to say that these mass killings have not come by way of the secondary market. Most have not, but some have, even if that's defined by someone using a family members gun.

We need to know who owns guns and what their mental state is. If it means that people are a little inconvenienced, then that's the price to pay. I always have to ask, though, if you're a law abiding citizen why wouldn't you want to participate in a process that does the most it can to keep guns from the wrong people?

We're dancing around the big topic, though, without better enforcement of current laws and a commitment to recognizing and treating the mentally ill, then it doesn't really matter. That's a big cost. My questions is why aren't pro-gun groups and supporters demanding increased spending to treat the mentally ill, if that is what they deem the problem to be? Also, why is it that when Republican governors cut spending in their states, caring and supporting the mentally ill is always one of the first on the chopping block.

How can it be explained that in a world that is filled with evil and mentally ill, that the U.S. stands alone in the number of incidents like these? What is so special about our mentally ill that pushes them to do this?

Finally, as a non-gun owner, but a supporter of the rights to do so, I look to the pro-gun side to solve this problem. Unfortunately, there is no will or support to do anything about it. If the pro-gun side does nothing, what do you think the anti-gun side is going to do?

[bigsky]

You dont "need to know who owns guns and what their mental state is". That is exactly the big brother is watching tyrant state america is not supposed to be.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

You dont "need to know who owns guns and what their mental state is". That is exactly the big brother is watching tyrant state america is not supposed to be.

Obviously, we do, since these killers are going through legal processes and still ending up with guns, either through failure of proper mental evaluations or failure of background checks.

Automobile registration, licensing and other controls are greater in a majority of states than guns. That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

This topic is such a bad example of irrational fears of big brother watching over you. The government is already watching over you, whether you like it or not. Enforcing current laws, expanding them to all gun transactions, and proper registration will not produce an obtuse incremental oversight by government as so many want to think.

I just stand by my belief that if the pro-gun knows what will solve these senseless mass killings, then support the people with the power to implement what is necessary to solve. I still see support for leaders that immediately cut mental health, government spending and all other things necessary at first tries when elected. If the pro-gun crowd can't fix it, who else do you think is going to try?

Everybody loves to point to Chicago, but one of the first things Bruce Rauner tried to do upon inauguration was cut mental health spending across the state, as well as cut taxes. A practice of many Republican politicians. You can't have it both ways and expect the anti-gun crowd to sit by and watch. If you're serious about saying it's a mental health issue, then you need to put the money where your mouth is, or you think that mass killings have an acceptable place in society.

Also, the pro-gun crowd says we need more people carrying guns in public places. OK, but who's going to pay for training these people? Who's going to pay for the cost of employing these people? I've never seen a political candidate even propose an idea about how to implement.

I so want the pro-gun crowd to fix this problem, but there doesn't seem to be a lot of courage to do so.

[KeithKSR]

We need for drivers to prove they don't drink before issuing a driver's license. That will cut down on DUI caused deaths.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

We need for drivers to prove they don't drink before issuing a driver's license. That will cut down on DUI caused deaths.

I don't know how this is a parallel argument, but being a drinker is not against the law. That's a whole other discussion about what needs to be done there. Feel free to start that.

Owning guns under certain scenarios is, and people are getting guns under current laws because for several reasons, and they need to be fixed and can be done without infringing upon anyone's rights.

I hear so many people deflect, point fingers, blame but offer up nothing of substance to fix the problem.

[CitizenBBN]

FWIW the NSSF has spent millions trying to address the mental health issue, going state to state to get more spending and to get the NICS system fixed. You say the pro gun groups haven't done anything, but they've done more in real results and spending than the anti-gun forces and this Administration, which has yet to come out in any real support of those efforts.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

FWIW the NSSF has spent millions trying to address the mental health issue, going state to state to get more spending and to get the NICS system fixed. You say the pro gun groups haven't done anything, but they've done more in real results and spending than the anti-gun forces and this Administration, which has yet to come out in any real support of those efforts.

Is there any evidence that it's working? It certainly doesn't appear so yet, considering that the mass killings are not slowing down and guns keep getting in the hands of the mentally ill, through legal channels. Anyone can throw money at problems, it takes good ideas and proper execution. That's where the government has failed us. I'm not going to consider their efforts a failure, though, it needs time to recognize real change.

As far as the Obama administration, what else can he do? It takes Congress to take action and they've defeated everything that he's put through thanks to Democrats in red states that are up for reelection. Congress is the problem, not the administration. Besides, pointing out the faults of the administration, the inability to get something passed should be a win for the pro-gun crowd.

Back to the point on the spending on mental health, what defines success and failure? Also, is the NRA involved? If so, how does their spending on mental health causes compare to the money spent on lobbying against gun control efforts?

I just read a couple of articles by the NSSF and I greatly applaud their efforts, but it's not going to be enough. I still stand by it's going to take an 'all of the above' solution that includes additional, common sense gun control.

This is a great debate, though, as I must admit that I didn't know a whole lot about the topic just a few days ago as I have never been passionate one way or the other. I've known enough to know when people are full of it, or simply tow their respective lines, which basically encompasses the entire media. So to read some info on hear that stimulates me to research and draw my own conclusions is great.

[CitizenBBN]

You talk about "throwing money", but the NSSF initiative is very specific and is the mortal opposite of "throwing money". The only people doing anything substantive are the pro gun forces, in fact the gun industry itself.

Has it worked? How do you know it hasn't? How many have been denied a gun b/c those mental health records are now in the system as they are supposed to be? Well the FBI doesn't have those numbers so we can't say for sure, but you are calling for exactly the same kind of think and you don't worry about solvency but with this you do? I know your'e getting at that it wont' be enough, but in truth they aren't even done yet, and the next step isn't more gun laws, it's getting more of those who are a risk to others to be handled through the system.

Is it not logical that we first make sure everyone who has already been declared mentally incompetent be properly identified in the system BEFORE we start identifying every gun owner in America as you suggest we need to do?

The problem with the "all of the above" approach is that it's what pro-government and pro-regulation forces always argue, and all it really does in the end is lead to more government without anything like a corresponding improvement in the problem. Then we have round after round of "pass some more laws, see if those help". that's the worst possible way to make policy. It's leading to the death of this nation.

The sad truth is we can't ever eliminate all of these attacks. There was an incident some months ago where a person killed 6 people with a car intentionally, so it's not even about guns alone. Arguably the Boston bombing was the work of a mentally ill lunatic, though that was couched in terrorism.

We can minimize them, but we need to try everything we can that doesn't infringe on the rights of the law abiding before we start curtailing the rights of all Americans. that's the first answer of the Left to about everything, and it should be the last desperate recourse. we aren't there yet on this issue, there are a LOT of other steps to take first.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

You talk about "throwing money", but the NSSF initiative is very specific and is the mortal opposite of "throwing money". The only people doing anything substantive are the pro gun forces, in fact the gun industry itself.

Has it worked? How do you know it hasn't? How many have been denied a gun b/c those mental health records are now in the system as they are supposed to be? Well the FBI doesn't have those numbers so we can't say for sure, but you are calling for exactly the same kind of think and you don't worry about solvency but with this you do? I know your'e getting at that it wont' be enough, but in truth they aren't even done yet, and the next step isn't more gun laws, it's getting more of those who are a risk to others to be handled through the system.

Is it not logical that we first make sure everyone who has already been declared mentally incompetent be properly identified in the system BEFORE we start identifying every gun owner in America as you suggest we need to do?

The problem with the "all of the above" approach is that it's what pro-government and pro-regulation forces always argue, and all it really does in the end is lead to more government without anything like a corresponding improvement in the problem. Then we have round after round of "pass some more laws, see if those help". that's the worst possible way to make policy. It's leading to the death of this nation.

The sad truth is we can't ever eliminate all of these attacks. There was an incident some months ago where a person killed 6 people with a car intentionally, so it's not even about guns alone. Arguably the Boston bombing was the work of a mentally ill lunatic, though that was couched in terrorism.

We can minimize them, but we need to try everything we can that doesn't infringe on the rights of the law abiding before we start curtailing the rights of all Americans. that's the first answer of the Left to about everything, and it should be the last desperate recourse. we aren't there yet on this issue, there are a LOT of other steps to take first.

I think they can be done simultaneously, but priority given to identification, which is something that I don't feel we're currently doing well at all.

I don't necessarily agree with your "all of the above" conclusions, but I do agree that those risks could be possible, but it should not deter from passing sensible laws that don't infringe. I have no problems for adding burdens, however. That's just me, though. I don't mind to be burdened by anything if it means getting things right.

We need to fix the current laws first, and the systems, but I'm not going to be convinced otherwise that control from the secondary markets is extremely necessary, which I still fail to understand how that would be infringing on any law abiding citizens rights to ownership.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

I just ran across this on my twitter feed, which touches on the subject. His last sentence pretty much sums up my feeling on the matter, which I've been saying, but a little less direct.

John Oliver Takes A Look At Mental Health

[Doc]

I just ran across this on my twitter feed, which touches on the subject. His last sentence pretty much sums up my feeling on the matter, which I've been saying, but a little less direct.

John Oliver Takes A Look At Mental Health

I tend to agree with the article. I see the "mental health issue" as a red herring. Pro gun folks want to criticize the president for his lack of a plan claiming yet they offer no plan when it comes to improving the mental health of America. What is the plan? Spend more money doing what? If you want a gun do you go to the DMV, apply and have some civil servant give you a Rorschach test?


If you see a butterfly you get a gun. If you see a devil you don't?

Or do you need a note from a psychologist before you can get a gun? Do I have to go see a shrink prior to heading over to Pete's firearms? Or is it that if I've ever seen a shrink I'm ineligible to own a gun? Guess doctor patient confidentiality goes out the window because now my psychoanalyst is now required to check in with the government too. But not like that matter since that's a moot point with Obama care and all because the government already has access to my medical records.

How about restraining orders? Does a restraining order forever ban me from gun ownership or is there a time limit on that? How about complaints by "concerned citizens" who think I'm crazy, or that I have a bad temper? What about vindictive ex-spouses or girlfriends/boyfriends?

Come on, all of you that are critical of Obama's lack of a plan, lets hear yours. Rest assured I don't like anything Obama has yet to NOT offer. I don't like anything he has offered either in his 6 years of his presidency in any area but offer something better that is something of substance. One thing I do agree with though is the idiocy of "gun free zones". Might as well put up a sign that says "if you want to commit a mass shooting, do it here".

As for Obama himself, he needs to take much of the blame for these shootings. They have occurred under his watch for a reason. Part of that is due to the civil unrest HE HAS CREATED concerning law enforcement, racial tension and gun control. These are all issue that he consciously elected to bring to the forefront and issue he needs to live with the consequences.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Doc, did you watch the video? It's pretty funny.

In rebuttal to you, I totally disagree that the President deserves much of the blame. We can all debate whether what you think of his policies ability to work, but he tried and lost to a do-nothing Congress. Law enforcement issues, racial tensions and gun control differences have existed forever, no one President can own improving or hurting them. More blame lies towards governments at all levels who fail to fix the problems and enforce the laws that exist today, the true cause of these people to acquire these weapons.

Honestly, most of the blame falls on the people, all of us. We can debate cause and effect, but we keep going to the polls and electing leaders that have differing opinions but don't prioritize the solutions. We keep putting "stuff happens" leaders in place, on both sides. We deserve MUCH of the blame.

[Doc]

Doc, did you watch the video? It's pretty funny.

In rebuttal to you, I totally disagree that the President deserves much of the blame. We can all debate whether what you think of his policies ability to work, but he tried and lost to a do-nothing Congress. Law enforcement issues, racial tensions and gun control differences have existed forever, no one President can own improving or hurting them. More blame lies towards governments at all levels who fail to fix the problems and enforce the laws that exist today, the true cause of these people to acquire these weapons.

Honestly, most of the blame falls on the people, all of us. We can debate cause and effect, but we keep going to the polls and electing leaders that have differing opinions but don't prioritize the solutions. We keep putting "stuff happens" leaders in place, on both sides. We deserve MUCH of the blame.

Where is he when a cop gets shot, when an officer in the line of duty is gunned down in cold blood? Yet when a black person is shot he is there in support. When a officer in the course of doing their job arrests a black professor in Mass, they "acted stupidly" because the police are racist, enough so that the president comments on it and calls a "beer summit" in support of the individual who is making the police officers job more difficult. That would be the police officer who are the people whos daily job it is to put their lives on the line protecting us. Yet when a thug punk in Ferguson Missouri tries to take the gun from an officer and gets gun down, the President doesn't look for the facts but rather comes out with cries for social justice against the police. When the President supports social unrest, its no surprise when there is social unrest. Why would one be surprised when the violence moves from killing of police, which doesn't seem to bother him too much since it doesn't warrant a comment, to killing of citizens? Kill a single black kid and he will comment on that EVERY TIME but have a black man walks up to a police car and puts a couple bullets in the back of the heads of two unsuspecting police officers and that's just an occupational hazard and something he couldn't give a crap about. One act warrants comment on racial tension and gun control, the other doesn't. Sorry that we see it differently. I used to believe the President represented ALL citizens of the country whether they be black or white, democrat or republican, and did so equally. Clearly this one doesn't. It you're democrat he cares more. If you're black he cares more. If he can buy your vote he cares more. I say he deserves much of the blame because he has elected to focus on these issues. Gun control is something he elected to make part of his agenda. When that is something he wanted to bring attention to, those who seek attention will do so by killing. I believe much of the escalation in mass shooting is simply because of a copy cat factor. There were crazy people 15 years ago too, and people could get guns then. Now there is much more attention on it.

PS: Yes, I did watch the video. Yes, it was funny and yes I agree with most of it. Thought my post said that. I don't think the GOP and their mental health approach offers any solutions at all. I don't believe that is the problem nor will addressing it solve the problem. That doesn't mean mental health isn't an issue or that it should be better funded, only that better funding or fixing that won't solve mass shooting incidents.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

Doc, I know you mentioned you read the article, not sure if that meant watching the video. I was only asking from a humor standpoint, not necessarily a topic standpoint.

On your other points, I see them as two entirely different debates. Your view, in a real quick summary, is the opposite of the Kanye, "George Bush doesn't care about black people". There are huge perception gaps.

[Doc]

Doc, I know you mentioned you read the article, not sure if that meant watching the video. I was only asking from a humor standpoint, not necessarily a topic standpoint.

On your other points, I see them as two entirely different debates. Your view, in a real quick summary, is the opposite of the Kanye, "George Bush doesn't care about black people". There are huge perception gaps.

I don't think the president should care more about any specific group of people. IMO he, or she, should care and treat them all equally. If the people in NOLA were in need of help then they all should be helped, regardless of skin color. If a group is being treated unjustly then you correct that injustice.

[StuBleedsBlue2]

I don't think the president should care more about any specific group of people. IMO he, or she, should care and treat them all equally. If the people in NOLA were in need of help then they all should be helped, regardless of skin color. If a group is being treated unjustly then you correct that injustice.

I agree, just no President actually has done that, or at least has been perceived to have done that. At least in my time.

[CitizenBBN]

1) Why do these people get/have guns? Simple: we are a free society where we don't remove the rights of people BEFORE they do anything to deserve them being removed. We are BORN with inalienable rights. they are not granted by the state, we have them by act of being born. They can only be removed for cause.

I could prevent a LOT of crime and deaths if you let me start taking away people's rights without them having done anything to warrant it, but purely on the basis of wanting to reduce crime or deaths.

but we don't do that, and that means we pay a price on the back end, which is people being able to commit crimes we could have prevented if we had just not had those pesky liberties.

2) Addressing "mental health" in this country is a good thing beyond the gun issue, and there have been some very concrete plans suggested. None of them are a catch all answer, there is no such thing, but they are good incremental steps that do NOT infringe on individual liberties (at least not those proposed by the conservative side, I can't speak to some of the other plans).

The NSSF work to fix NICS involves only properly reporting those who have already been ruled a threat. Other plans to simply improve access to mental care are all sound. they won't lead to a 1:1 solution to these episodes, but it will reduce the pool of people who are so troubled they come to this end by getting some of them help.

Doc - yes, the law as it is written today says if you are even accused of domestic violence your guns can be confiscated pending the outcome, and if you are convicted you will lose that right to own guns. that has been in place a LONG time, just like the restriction on felons.

3) How do we balance rights and avoid having to have a note from a shrink to buy a gun? Easy enough, we use the current system but just use it instead of ignore it. To have that right removed it should be by decision of a judge ruling someone mentally incompetent. That's a system with sufficient protections to insure it is still the removal of a right to self defense, and not turned into a privilege of self defense granted by a sympathetic doctor or bureaucrat.

[Doc]

1) Why do these people get/have guns? Simple: we are a free society where we don't remove the rights of people BEFORE they do anything to deserve them being removed. We are BORN with inalienable rights. they areu not granted by the state, we have them by act of being born. They can only be removed for cause.

I could prevent a LOT of crime and deaths if you let me start taking away people's rights without them having done anything to warrant it, but purely on the basis of wanting to reduce crime or deaths.

but we don't do that, and that means we pay a price on the back end, which is people being able to commit crimes we could have prevented if we had just not had those pesky liberties.

2) Addressing "mental health" in this country is a good thing beyond the gun issue, and there have been some very concrete plans suggested. None of them are a catch all answer, there is no such thing, but they are good incremental steps that do NOT infringe on individual liberties (at least not those proposed by the conservative side, I can't speak to some of the other plans).

The NSSF work to fix NICS involves only properly reporting those who have already been ruled a threat. Other plans to simply improve access to mental care are all sound. they won't lead to a 1:1 solution to these episodes, but it will reduce the pool of people who are so troubled they come to this end by getting some of them help.

Doc - yes, the law as it is written today says if you are even accused of domestic violence your guns can be confiscated pending the outcome, and if you are convicted you will lose that right to own guns. that has been in place a LONG time, just like the restriction on felons.

3) How do we balance rights and avoid having to have a note from a shrink to buy a gun? Easy enough, we use the current system but just use it instead of ignore it. To have that right removed it should be by decision of a judge ruling someone mentally incompetent. That's a system with sufficient protections to insure it is still the removal of a right to self defense, and not turned into a privilege of self defense granted by a sympathetic doctor or bureaucrat.

And?

What else is there to this pro-gun/mental health plan that stops these mass shootings? I don't recall the Columbine kids ever being accused of domestic violence. The guy in LA had a restraining order by an ex on him from years ago, but was convicted of nothing. I suspect that you would not favor a lifetime ban due to a RO by an ex? Nothing in there would have deterred the Fort Hood shooter (Nadal Hasan). As the link article and video stated, few of these shooters have ever been deemed legally incompetent prior to their shootings. Its easy after the fact to declare somebody nuts but then its too late. Applying the rules in place would have made no difference in almost all the cases.

Addition, that doesn't take into account what you have rightly pointed out as the biggest cause of gun violence. Shooters DON'T FOLLOW THE LAW. So it hard to say we have this gun violence because we don't apply the laws so we need to apply the laws to decrease it and we have gun violence because criminals don't follow the laws. Personally I agree with the second part, not the first

[bigsky]

Run-Hide-Fight is the current campus wisdom for mass shooters.

It is insufficient. It wont stop a mass shooting.

What does stop mass shooters is being confronted with a gun, either by a private person or a policeman. Once confronted, they are likely to kill themselves. Or they're shot.

Welcome to reality.

[Doc]

Run-Hide-Fight is the current campus wisdom for mass shooters.

It is insufficient. It wont stop a mass shooting.

What does stop mass shooters is being confronted with a gun, either by a private person or a policeman. Once confronted, they are likely to kill themselves. Or they're shot.

Welcome to reality.

I agree. IMO we should have armed guards on campus. I'd also have them gun free with the exclusion of those armed security guards.

[dan_bgblue]

Doc, what would be your estimate on the number of armed guards that would need to be employed to protect all the students on every campus, Universities, tech schools, community colleges, down thru kindergarten, in the US? I honestly can not come up with a reasonable number of guards for just one campus, WKU, whose dorms, classroom buildings, admin buildings, etc that I am familiar with.

[Doc]

I say enough that response time of 5 min MAX

[suncat05]

Doc, what would be your estimate on the number of armed guards that would need to be employed to protect all the students on every campus, Universities, tech schools, community colleges, down thru kindergarten, in the US? I honestly can not come up with a reasonable number of guards for just one campus, WKU, whose dorms, classroom buildings, admin buildings, etc that I am familiar with.

Hmmmmmm...............I wonder how much tax revenue would be created by the creation of ALL of those jobs?

[dan_bgblue]

Don't know, but the guards will be paid for with tax money, so it would seem to be a net negative number