Not nearly as well as we should. There is no psych evaluation. No database that could send up flags when one person is accumulating enough weapons for a small army.
But there is no way for the seller to verify the diagnosis because its protected by confidentiality. Most of the shooting have been committed by people with 1 or more mental illnesses, who got their weapons legally.
I heard something about it being from an extremist group. I haven't confirmed it, but it makes more sense than the fucker being lucky enough for everything to fall through in the time span his purchase was being processed.
Let's look at this like NASA would. We have a critical failure and lives were lost. So... we have a list of factors that led up to the event. We have poor oversight- what does this mean? Even IF you couldn't get a gun illegally it means he could have bought one legally as he was not put on the list. We have a failure to diagnose and treat a mental illness.... when the rocket blows up we don't blame the rocket, plenty of rockets don't blow up. We know the design is good, so when a rocket blows up, something caused or allowed it. We have several failures by government organizations to prevent this. Somehow I feel that adding organizations or adding burden to the same organizations which are underfunded, overstretched, or incapable of their jobs would not prevent this. As for gun laws yes. They need changed. We need better, smarter laws overseen by people who know about guns and their uses. If you want a good read- check out the story of how the .50 cal was made illegal in California.
To sum up- uneducated council people were lied to and shown a military grade weapon not even available for civilian use, and fear was used to convince them that a $10,000 70lb 6' long gun was a danger to street crime despite no such weapon ever having been used (and it being ludicrously impractical to do so.) this is an example of where we allow emotion to overcome logic, and we give into fear and make pointless decisions just to feel safe. Gun laws need to be smarter- not dumber. A blanket ban or restricting weapons that look scary doesn't do any real good.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/836082/posts
But they're not, really. They usually do background checks, even people trying to prove how easy it is to get a gun have had their tests tank because they couldn't get one as easy as they'd claimed.
Even then, it usually becomes an issue after a school shooting, by a teen who got the gun through illegal means, and you shouldn't punish law abiding citizens, making it harder to protect themselves because other people are breaking the law.
It's like saying I have to go through a background check to purchase butter knives just cause some guys go on stabbing sprees.
Guns certainly are too accessible. Criminals and people who shoot up schools should not have access to guns. People at serious risk should have no or limited access to guns. That is self evident. What remains on the table is how to limit those people's access while still allowing access to everyone else. A sudden "ban" on guns would cause economic and cultural disasters. The manufacturers and all their employees, smiths, sellers, accessory manufacturers, gun owners, the overnight financial impact would likely cause a recession. So any curtailing would need to be gradual. But just like drugs there is a HUGE market and no shortage South of the border. When a legitimate billion dollar enterprise shuts down criminals will gladly take the money, and we can't stop drugs as is- how do we stop guns flowing in and being home made? It's far more complex than just a few silly laws. We sell Tobacco still after 30+ years of working to curtail it and 60+ knowing how deadly it is. It's not simple.
You want your kids to live? Don't punish the innocent, or threaten our rights. Instead, prepare for those who do not care about anyone's lives or rights.
▼Reply
deleted
· 6 years ago
You must like standing on graves. Either way, taking away guns from good people isnt going to help America, nor is it going to lower school shootings. We just have some fucked up people. I mean, seriously, when has a sane person ever shot up a school? Either he got that gun from someone else, or he obtained it illegally in some other way.
You know, it's odd to me. Every time we have a shooting, before loved ones even get to bury the victims, from the gallery can be heard: "BAN THE GUNS!!" In itself it seems dispicable to me to use a tragedy, especially a fresh tragedy, to sell politics; but it's also irresponsible. Before we know The Who's and whys people have an opinion, people know the cause. Before we have had time to grieve and process people are out high on emotions arguing an emotional case on a practical matter. Even more disgusting to me is that in selfish and blind emotion people rally to the easiest and most obvious conclusion. Few ask why offenders with suspicious backgrounds or who were known dangerous weren't handled. Few lament the sad state of mental health care or the factors that led to the shooting. Few ask why there isn't better security in place for such a precious thing when certain areas are known as targets. No. It's the guns. Ban them then. It worked so well to end drug use.
It is never insensitive to look at a tragedy and wonder how it could have been prevented or how we can do better. It would be disrespectful not to. Last I checked, countries that have banned personal firearms have far fewer mass shootings. And of course, our healthcare system needs a rework, and that could help, but a school shouldn't have to be guarded like a prison. Treating all students like potential threats is not going to help this.
If someone really has it in their head that they wanna shoot up someone or something, no matter if their is a ban on guns or not. They are going to get ahold of a gun someway. I can buy guns that are likely stolen, from a private owner or goverment establishment. There’s ways around anything. I’m all for owning guns. It’s not the gun killing people it’s the dipshit pulling the trigger. A gun will sit an collect dust an rust back into the earth if it is never messed with. Even if we register all the firearms or get rid off all the guns. People will just use other ways to kill. Bombs, knives, homemade spears the list goes on and on. I can’t say there need to be tuffer penalties on the people doing this shit but if they kill themselves then who do we punish. Their parents who most likely knew nothing about what they were gonna do. Or lock them up with three hot & a cot for life, an say they need to think about what they have done. We can’t torture them, I wish though, so what do we do?
I think the solution may be to identify high risk students or train someone at the school to be qble to defent students, someone here proposed using fire extinguishers for this purpose a while ago, I think that may be a good idea
But neither are anywhere near as foolproof as a .45.
Schizophrenia and similar afflictions give some resistance to pepper spray and tazers. Nevermind that pepper spray meant for spitting distance, and tazers aren't much better, but are also single shot.
I upvoted just now. There's been a downvote spree but they don't seem to be the talkative type. You aren't wrong in the sense that "safe" Pepper spray formulations and taser voltages aren't generally able to stop people who are physically tough, determined, or in an altered state. CS is more effective but still not 100% and is far more dangerous as well as indiscriminate to who it attacks. Use of CS in hostage/shooter situations by trained special forces has led to death of many hostages in past actions and is not advisable in closed spaces with people who may have compromised health. That said a large caliber weapon was more stopping power than the above provided you get a good hit, but it's still not 100% on all people and carries dangers of its own beyond misses, accidental discharge, and over penetration. Rigorous regular training is required to be able to reliably use a weapon in a live situation. So there's nothing inherently wrong with what you said wether someone agrees or not.
A panic button followed by one of those giant pepper spray cans are good for multiple shots, they might put down everybody in a given room, but that would stop the shooter/slasher long enough for help to arrive.
But they won't be because they'll have defenses
But yeah, you're the better party for wanting to ban guns and wish death on people for not agreeing with you, okay
Wow. Real classy. I guess you don't want an end to gun violence, you just want it to happen to people you disagree with. Those are called hit squads by the way, they're real big with facists. While I think MOST people are unlikely to ever need or use a gun in defense and are fantasizing- not all people live in nice urban areas or quiet posh boutique towns. There ARE people who legitamely need guns for protection and taking away their defense is like taking insulin from diabetics because body builders abuse it as a steroid. If we see it as an unlikely fear based emotion not founded in logic, so to is most people's reaction to guns. A fewr based reaction to a life threatening situation which they'll likely never face. Of two irrational fears, neither is logically more valid. It's much harder to get solid stats for lives saved by guns than taken by guns, so we can't weigh which would possibly save more lives. What a shitty thing to say. I hope you mature as a person and embrace democracy
What really bothers me is we have a shooting and its right to ban the guns but no one ever talks about the mental illness the kid had or more important the antidepressants/anti-psychotics that the kid was on. That on the bottle says may cause suicidal or homicidal thoughts. Seems like not one of these kids wasn't treated by a psychiatrist so either we have the greatest medical system in the world that no kid has slipped through or maybe the drugs might have some thing to do with it. The first big school shooting columbine both kids were medicated and most if not all of the other school shooting since then. But that's not politics like ban the guns and it goes against the medical industry so no talk about it.
https://www.snopes.com/2018/02/16/how-many-school-shootings-in-2018/
Okay so there have been 7 school shootings since the beginning of the year. That’s still an awful lot in my opinion, and I don’t think we (in Europe) have had any school shootings this year or last year, or at least I haven’t heard of any. We also (generally speaking) have stricter gun laws than the US. Do with that information what you will
You also have a lot more acid attacks and people driving into crowd
Just because people don't have guns doesn't mean that's gonna stop them from attacking others
5
deleted
· 6 years ago
We have more of those attacks, yes, but overall we have fewer attacks, at least from what I could find.
You also have way smaller populations in each country. I want to say I read something stating that the rate is similar though ( though I don't have the source on hand)
Both are meant to attack someone for some reason or another. Acid attacks can end in death just like shooting can end with some people only being injured. An attack is still an attack even if the intent isn't the same.
4
deleted
· 6 years ago
Smaller population? The EU (which isn’t even all of Europe) has over 500 million citizens. I wasn’t talking about separate countries, but Europe as a whole. What I can say for my own country, however, is that we have had 0 acid attacks, vehicles driving into crowds, or school shootings this year, though we do have only 17 million people
I’ve been reading just how dangerous living in the US is these last few days and have found that despite the fear we all have of being murdered the sad truth is this country we are more likely to die of suicide than homicide. This clearly points to a mental health issue. (Strangely farmers in France have a high suicide rate too).
For home defense a pistol is not generally the best weapon. Pistols exist to kill people at close ranges, but small caliber pistols don't have reliable stopping power up close, and large caliber pistols can over penetrate and go through standard building materials like walls into other rooms or homes. A long riffle is too long and unwieldy to make the best invasion defense weapon, and even intermediate caliber riffles have a bigger problem with penetration than large caliber pistols. Shot guns are simple, require less accuracy, have generally less penetration, and ample stopping power. But a short shotgun for home defense is illegal many places. If you have a large property like a rural farm or estate a long riffle may be useful- it all depends. There is no one fun that's good for all situations and users. That's why so many exist, so people can choose what will suit their needs best.
Not only that, the the second amendment is meant to allow the citizens to rise up against the government in the event that tyranny takes hold. So we SHOULD have automatic weapons and "high" (normal) capacity magazines. Otherwise, how are we supposed to keep the government in check?
Well- I suppose you're being cheeky so I'll answer in kind. Should we be restricted from possessing any dangerous object? We do know that certain people are in fact trusted with grenade launchers and such, while others are not. We do know some people are trusted to fly aircraft, drive cars, or have access to nuclear material and some are not. Perhaps in school you recall using the little round "safety scissors" and then at some point you were trusted with adult scissors or even razors providing you showed apt? So we know there are criteria under which one can be and ones are entrusted with grenade launchers. That said the standard interpretation of "bear arms" applies to small arms and not ordinance, artillery, or heavy weapons. So regardless the question posed about grenade launchers is at best silly and at worst demonstrative of the type of ignorance that hinders reasonable debate on firearms laws.
There’s also not technically a prohibition of cannons. Or rocket launchers. Local laws vary by location, but federal law classified many of these as “destructive devices” which are legal to own with a special permit and tax. The ammunition or related consumable chemicals, as well as the ability to discharge such weapons legally is another matter. It should also be noted that certain older weapons can be owned as antiques which don’t follow the same laws as consumer firearms. Some jurisdictions have special laws “grandfathering” in weapons that pass through inheretence so long as they are kept within the family.
I can 100% back this man. I will personally agree that if he respects my right to own a gun, I'll respect his kids rights to go to school and live. Actually- I'll respect those either way. So there you have it. Ben Wexler has solved gun control. From now on, anyone who owns a gun must agree not to shoot yo any schools and parents must agree to let them have guns. Well... anyone who owns a gun legally.
No. But seriously- dear Ben- that isn't how this works. No ones rights are more important than anyone else's. That's what equal rights are. We place restrictions on things so that the majority of people can have the maximum freedoms to enjoy their lives. Children shouldn't have to gamble their lives to go to school any more than adults should have to gamble their lives to go to the movies. There's always a gamble though- so we need a solution which minimizes the risk while preserving the maximum rights of all equally. Facism isn't the same as safety.
▼
deleted
· 6 years ago
The right to stay alive and the right to own a certain object are not (or at least in my opinion should not) be equal rights
So a schizophrenic who has delusions and someone who suffers paranoid episodes should have full access to high powered weapons because it "liberty"? No. Thats negligence and a disaster waiting to happen
Easy spazz- nobody said he should have had access. The FBI should have arrested him last month. When you start using buzzwords like “high power” in reference to an AR you are showing that you have no knowledge or understanding of the situation aside from the false information fed you by the media for the purpose of fear mongering and ratings.
@celticrose- please don't put words in my mouth, if you have trouble reading what I wrote I can explain if you ask. I never said the mentally ill should have guns, I said specifically that liberty demands the minimal intrusion into rights to allow all people the maximum freedom to conduct themselves. That means that if we must restrict things then we must, but we must do it in a way which effects the least people's freedoms while doing the most to ensure safety to others. For instance many explosives can be bought freely for commercial and other purposes. We restrict the types and other things and use measures to help ensure they're used responsibly because they are dangerous, but do have legitimate uses. The world is not binary black and white, people can take a sensible view of things instead of being all or none.
@yimmine- actually no. In a practical sense a human life can't be valued, but is general held to be of higher value than most things. In an ideological sense all rights are equal in value because when you begin to pick and choose- qualify and parse rights, you decent a slippery slope. Values change over time, so picking and choosing who and what gets to have value is dangerous. We've seen many colors, nationalities and religions, LGBT and more be excluded from having rights because we decided those universal inalienable protections didn't apply to them by the values of the day. You can't pick and choose with rights, only apply reasonable measures to ensure everyone has an equal chance to enjoy theirs. It's basic civics. Even if you don't believe in a right or it doesn't effect you, one must protect all rights lest they find that they hold dear in danger.
.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43090664
.
Had the FBI done their job he would have been on “the list” and possibly in a mental health facility. Had existing laws been enforced this could have been averted. The FBI was wasting resources on bullshit and didn’t do their job.
As for that bit about the FBI wasting resources and not doing their jobs: What else is new?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/836082/posts
Even then, it usually becomes an issue after a school shooting, by a teen who got the gun through illegal means, and you shouldn't punish law abiding citizens, making it harder to protect themselves because other people are breaking the law.
It's like saying I have to go through a background check to purchase butter knives just cause some guys go on stabbing sprees.
Schizophrenia and similar afflictions give some resistance to pepper spray and tazers. Nevermind that pepper spray meant for spitting distance, and tazers aren't much better, but are also single shot.
But yeah, you're the better party for wanting to ban guns and wish death on people for not agreeing with you, okay
Okay so there have been 7 school shootings since the beginning of the year. That’s still an awful lot in my opinion, and I don’t think we (in Europe) have had any school shootings this year or last year, or at least I haven’t heard of any. We also (generally speaking) have stricter gun laws than the US. Do with that information what you will
Just because people don't have guns doesn't mean that's gonna stop them from attacking others
No. But seriously- dear Ben- that isn't how this works. No ones rights are more important than anyone else's. That's what equal rights are. We place restrictions on things so that the majority of people can have the maximum freedoms to enjoy their lives. Children shouldn't have to gamble their lives to go to school any more than adults should have to gamble their lives to go to the movies. There's always a gamble though- so we need a solution which minimizes the risk while preserving the maximum rights of all equally. Facism isn't the same as safety.