How do you stop massacres by mentally unstable people using guns?

[pirana 0]

Quote

>I would say any shrink worth their weight in salt could've easily identified
>serious problems with every mass shooting perpetrator I've ever seen or heard of.

What would have identified this guy?

I am certain a tool like the MMPI would work fine.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[billvon 2,396]

>sure, 'access to guns' made him crazy . . .

?? Uh, how do you get that?

>and furthermore, as a very stupid individual, he'd have NEVER figured out a way to
>hurt a bunch of people in a confined building

He might indeed have done that. The odds of him pulling off this scale of killing are a lot lower. And the odds are zero that he would have been able to shoot anyone.

(Note that this does NOT mean that "banning guns" or anything is a good solution)

[billvon 2,396]

>I am certain a tool like the MMPI would work fine.

What would it have caught?

[pirana 0]

Quote

The NRA is not the governing body to allow nor disallow background checks. Specifically the ones currently required to purchase a weapon.

I'm still trying to make sense of the last sentence though.

Not sure what sort of intelligence test you're after here, I thought we were talking about "loonies". Had this criminal had to take an intelligence test, my guess is he would have performed rather well.

I personally have never objected to gun education and have in fact insisted on that in advice given some people I know. It led to a number of them NOT buying weapons.
Which in those cases, I felt was the right result.

I'm aware the NRA does not have the jurisdiction; but are you so naive as to be unaware of their power as a lobby in shaping (mostly preventing) legislation?

My reference to intelligence was not to the unstable people attempting to buy firearms; but to those supporting the NRA in it's resistance to agreeing to legislation that would mandate meaningful screening.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[quade 3]

Yet the event, a guy storming a movie theater, still would have taken place. You or anyone else's weapon in the theater would not have changed that.

It is impossible for an individual, such as yourself, to prevent that regardless of the amount of firepower at your disposal and no amount of you firing back turns back the clock on an event like that.

It's additionally questionable (by your own admission) whether or not you would be able to halt the event already taking place. Further, we've discussed at some length the wisdom of even trying.

So, exactly, how does Airdiver's suggestion of dropping background checks help anything? It doesn't.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[normiss 622]

Oh I get it, our government is fucked up and we're going to blame someone else.
Again.

Good luck getting any psych health information on folks with the current HIPPA environment. Oh wait. That's the government.

I think my military upbringing, and a tour in the Navy gives me a little different view too. I have had tons of gun education and safety classes, I held a TS/SBI clearance for a very long time. My background WAS checked thoroughly.

I'm not sure what information on a civilian with no criminal history would ever show doubts of one's mental stability.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

I figured someone would take exception to this. I have no evidence that I can show you on the internet. I have to rely on common sense here. I can look at the pictures and video of this young man and tell he is not part of the Cleaver family.

I'd very much disagree with the idea that you can judge someone's mental state from a photo, certainly not to the extent that you'd be justified in taking away a constitutional right.

Quote

I would bet big money that someone...friends, family, neighbors, the guy who sold him a gun, wherever he got explosives, etc...knew this kid wasn't quite right.

The guy was living half-way across the country from his family. They didn't know that he had failed his oral prelim exam, or that he was withdrawing from the PhD program; do you think he forgot to mention those things, but told them about his plan for the theater (rhetorical question)? He apparently didn't have friends, and his neighbors never saw him. That's not normal, but also not as unusual as you may think. Some students are successful because they prefer to work instead of socialize, they just have different priorities than most people. He bought a lot of gear over the internet, where there is no human interaction so no chance to appear "unstable". It's not at all surprising that he was able to act normally for long enough for a short encounter with a gun store salesman, who after all has an incentive to "make the sale", and none at all to raise an alarm unless the guy were to be specific about his plans.

Quote

You are right. There is and will be no law implemented by the government that will effect this situation or others like it. I think you inadvertently supported my point. Laws can not fix things. People can. Search warrants are a poor substitute for people who care about you taking an interest in your life and problems. Responsibility placed on the government to keep an eye on this individual will never replace the responsibility of those who knew him.

Not inadvertent. I agree the best defense is "...people who care about you taking an interest in your life and problems." The problem is, you can't force people to have those kinds of interactions, and it's easy for people who are at risk of such behavior to go off the radar.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

>So, you're admitting there is something wrong with the background check process
>and it should be more thorough.
What would a more thorough background check have found in this case?

Hard to know. The background checks the military uses to grant top secret clearances might be overboard, but the ones used for buying weapons is clearly insufficient though. Somewhere between the two extremes is probably appropriate.

Exactly my point when I keep using my Process Analyst mantra of the current processes being prefectly designed for the results being generated. The current process allows unstable people to acquire and use guns at will as long as they haven't killed anyone yet. IMO, that is not good enough - and based on the results we see - I would think most people would agree.

At their core, I think most do agree; but they are more afraid of the paranoid predictions of the NRA lobby (today it's the unstable - tomorrow it will be you) than they are of the next unstable shooter.

Anybody that thinks the current process works just fine is simply in denial.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[wayneflorida 0]

Quote

Quote

I would recommend stepping back a few decades.

What year did Charles Whitman climb the bell tower? Pretty sure it was a few decades ago.

There is nothing new under the sun.

1966

[pirana 0]

Quote

>I am certain a tool like the MMPI would work fine.

What would it have caught?

The fact that the guy was unstable at the least, and very likely that he is psychotic.

Such exams are very good at identifying abhorrent beliefs.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

It's just that environment is not an 'excuse' for bad behavior and that mitigating our responses based on that does less than nothing to effect the change. We can 'understand' and 'sympathize' with the 'whys' someone breaks a law, but that is not license to lessen our corrective responses to their actions. Yet we see all the time, people that are willing to give one guy a free pass due to their upbringing and another guy not even if they do the exact same action.

OK, so now we're up to 99% agreement.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The current process allows unstable people to acquire and use guns at will as long as they haven't killed anyone yet.

as of today - someone currently diagnosed as violent and criminally unstable will not get to buy a gun - I don't see how you plan to determine which people will get that diagnoses in the future vs those that won't.

the "current process" allows people that have not yet demonstrated criminal instability to get guns

you have not yet demonstrated criminal instability - nor have I - I am not inclined to restrict your freedoms in any way based on that. would you?

how do you propose to take away a right to own property from someone that hasn't done anything wrong? though you sound reasonable on first glance, your comment is actually a bit distressing

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Such exams are very good at identifying abhorrent beliefs.

I can't wait for government to decide what is in that list of "abhorrent beliefs"....and then have it change every year.

freedom of choice?
individual responsibility?
using a regular lightbulb?
going to church each week?
NOT going to church each week?
not having ID?
spanking?
not spanking?
etc etc etc

and then using that litmus test to determine which of the rights I'm endowed with I get to exercise


who here wants Al Franken to create that list?
who here wants Michelle Bachmann to create that list?

anyone? anyone?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[normiss 622]

Quote

Anybody that thinks the current process works just fine is simply in denial.

Disagree.

The system works fine for law abiding citizens.
Criminals by their choice generally could not care less what laws we put in place. They don't generally buy from someone that performs a background check! Nor do I expect they ever will.

Good thing our government is capable of eliminating illegal behavior. We can start closing prisons soon I'm sure.
Just pile on more laws!
Magic!

[billvon 2,396]

>you have not yet demonstrated criminal instability - nor have I - I am not inclined
>to restrict your freedoms in any way based on that. would you?

I wouldn't want to restrict anyone's right to own a gun who didn't have mental problems.

But someone with serious diagnosed mental problems? There is a pretty compelling argument there for not allowing them to purchase guns. Even if all they have done so far is write manifestos and fling poo.

[normiss 622]

LOL - ever wonder why the military doesn't like recruits with ADHD treatment???

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>you have not yet demonstrated criminal instability - nor have I - I am not inclined
>to restrict your freedoms in any way based on that. would you?

I wouldn't want to restrict anyone's right to own a gun who didn't have mental problems.

But someone with serious diagnosed mental problems? There is a pretty compelling argument there for not allowing them to purchase guns. Even if all they have done so far is write manifestos and fling poo.

I'm ok with restrictions for someone that's 'already' been diagnosed as homocidal due to an exam that was legally required based on commitable actions they've already demonstrated. I'm not ok with someone that's NOT been diagnosed for cause - I don't care how many manifestos or how much poo they fling.

Nor, do I think the intent to purchase should automatically trigger the pre-requisite for a mental assessment if they've never committed an illegal/violent act in their past. (this is really the only solution any of these guys are proposing - or, at least, they are bumping right up into it pretty hard without actually stating such - perhaps Homeland Security, or the "Patriot" Act can be retasked)


Rights shouldn't be casually taken based on what someone "might" do or just because you don't like their personal philosophies. Rights should only be taken as a result of actions that are demonstrated to cause harm to others. Sucks, but we don't own perfect crystal balls and I'm not ready to take any innocent and tie them down with a justification of "maybe" they'll be bad.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

LOL - ever wonder why the military doesn't like recruits with ADHD treatment???

wanna go ride bikes?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Its so easy to say and yet virtually impossible to do. So to everyone but especially those in favour of some version of firearm control, what would you do to stop another mass murder like in Colorado.

Several people have mentioned that people (friends, family) need to take the responsibility to speak up when they think there is risk of someone doing something like this. While I agree with that, there are always going to be people (such as the Colorado shooter) who fall between the cracks as they do not having family nearby, no friends outside of work acquaintances, etc. One possibility would be to require at least first-time gun buyers to complete some sort of firearm safety/proficiency course, where they have to spend some time (several hours at least) with instructors who are trained to teach the course, but also to pick up on "bad vibes". Somewhere in the process, there would be room for "idle banter" about "why do you want a firearm", "what are your hobbies/interests", etc that might give a clue that the person isn't entirely dealing with reality. People who already have a history of gun ownership without violent behavior, or military service (presumably know how to use a firearm safely, and have been "vetted" by the military), could be excused.

I don't know how such a requirement could be constructed to pass constitutional muster, and I rather suspect the NRA would firmly oppose such a mandatory program. I also think things would get sticky if the instructors were to identify a potential "problem" student; what to do with them at that point? Maybe just having to go through the process would be sufficient to dissuade those people who only want the firearm so they can vent on an unsuspecting public.

Of course, such people could still buy privately, so you'd need rules against selling to someone who hasn't completed the course. And, only law-abiding sellers would respect that. No system could catch every possible problem, and it isn't usually helpful to make the perfect the enemy of the good.

Anyway, the advantage would be that the buyer would have at least some training in the law and in safe firearm use, which is hard to see as a bad thing. And, they would have some face time with trained instructors. The down side would be expense, and possibly constitutionality issues.

Or, maybe someone has a better idea.

Or, we can stick with the status quo, just say "don't do that" to would-be mass killers, and bury our dead from time to time.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[billvon 2,396]

>I'm ok with restrictions for someone that's 'already' been diagnosed as homocidal due
>to an exam that was legally required based on commitable actions they've already
>demonstrated.

If we could diagnose people as "homicidal" things would be a lot easier! Unfortunately that's not a diagnosis; the actual diagnosis would be something like paranoid schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression etc.

> I'm not ok with someone that's NOT been diagnosed for cause - I don't care
>how many manifestos or how much poo they fling.

OK, just to be clear:

A 20 year old guy flings poo at his parents. They take him to a hospital. He is diagnosed with severe paranoid schizophrenia, and the doctor tells them to bring him back in a few days for a PET scan to see if they can find out what's gone wrong.

When he leaves, should he be able to go and buy a gun?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>OK, just to be clear:

A 20 year old guy flings poo at his parents. They take him to a hospital. He is diagnosed with severe paranoid schizophrenia, and the doctor tells them to bring him back in a few days for a PET scan to see if they can find out what's gone wrong.

When he leaves, should he be able to go and buy a gun?

well, that's a lot better (unless he's a farmer, they frequently fling poo in the direction of each other - it's called "cleaning the pen"). The key point is he is diagnosed. Not that he flung poo. As for the gun, I'd be ok if the doctor had the ability to report the condition to the checking agency - subject to being challenged, etc etc.



How about this scenario:

A 20 year doesn't fling poo, he lives a normal life, does nothing wrong. Should he have to go to a psychologist for a diagnosis just because he wants to purchase a piece of property (such as,,,,,as gun)?



One other point (in terms of why gun owners toe the line so strongly) can you honestly guarantee (knowing that not everyone is as reasonable as you are most of the time) that allowing the first scenario won't be pushed until it's the second scenario?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 2,396]

>A 20 year doesn't fling poo, he lives a normal life, does nothing wrong. Should he have
>to go to a psychologist for a diagnosis just because he wants to purchase a piece of
>property (such as,,,,,as gun)?

That's the problem; that's unreasonable for the person you describe.

But for the guy who IS flinging poo and writing manifestos it's probably a very good idea. The problem is how to make sure that happens.

>can you honestly guarantee that allowing the first scenario won't be pushed until it's
>the second scenario?

Not sure what that means. If you mean "force him to go to see a psychiatrist only if he gets weird, otherwise it's OK" then that's problematic because that requires judgment - and that will, eventually, be abused. (i.e. anyone who supports the war is violent and therefore should be checked out by a doctor.)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>can you honestly guarantee that allowing the first scenario won't be pushed until it's
>the second scenario?

Not sure what that means. If you mean "force him to go to see a psychiatrist only if he gets weird, otherwise it's OK" then that's problematic because that requires judgment - and that will, eventually, be abused. (i.e. anyone who supports the war is violent and therefore should be checked out by a doctor.)

No, if we allow the use of reasonable psychiatric diagnoses, do you really think the anti-gun crowd will declare victory? or will they continue to push for the next thing - requiring EVERYONE to get a psych analysis. (stock slippery slope argument - I'm not up to really trying too hard today). But I like your list too - sort of an intermediate abuse to get to the next step.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

The current process allows unstable people to acquire and use guns at will as long as they haven't killed anyone yet.

as of today - someone currently diagnosed as violent and criminally unstable will not get to buy a gun - I don't see how you plan to determine which people will get that diagnoses in the future vs those that won't.

the "current process" allows people that have not yet demonstrated criminal instability to get guns

you have not yet demonstrated criminal instability - nor have I - I am not inclined to restrict your freedoms in any way based on that. would you?

how do you propose to take away a right to own property from someone that hasn't done anything wrong? though you sound reasonable on first glance, your comment is actually a bit distressing

I'm assuming most people know what the MMPI is and how it works. It is an extremely reliable, nearly impossible to game exam that assesses mental health on several scales. I have no problem with it as a screening tool for gun ownership and can't see why anyone would object (unless they wanted to buy a gun and are afraid of not making the required level on whatever scale was to be used). So that would be my plan to determine who can own a gun and who can't.

To be clear - I would not restrict people's freedom to own a gun without an assessment of their mental health. That's where the exam comes in. I do find it amusing that some people are OK with classes to train on how to properly operate weapons, but not an assessment to see if they are mentally stable enough to be trusted not to use it to act out their twisted notions.

And this isn't just any piece of property. It's the most common tool for homicide in the world. Due to the secondary market (another problem the NRA refuses to help solve), they are very easy to procure.

So, between lack of scrutiny and ease of access; we end up with a homicide rate that is outrageous compared to the rest of the developed world.

Rate of homicide by firearms in the USA is:

10 times that of Austria or France
20 times that of Spain or Germany
50 times that of England or Singapore
100 times that of South Korea
200 times that of Japan

The closest developed country is Slovakia - with only 2 times the firearms murder rate. And yet powerful interests are able to maintain the status quo - truly shameful - and especially shameful that it is done under the guise of liberty.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[lawrocket 3]

"I believe the majority of gun owners would agree that we should do everything possible to prevent criminals and fugitives from purchasing weapons" - damn. There's all kinds of things we could possibly do. Execute criminals. Execute prospective criminals. Imprison them for life. These are all possible. But as president, I'd like to believe that you would be out there to be a buffer against mob mentality.

"that we should check someone's criminal record before they can check out a gun seller;" - but what about those without criminal records. Like this Aurora shooter. Shouldn't we do more? And more? How about creating the felony crime of "attempt to acquire a firearm." Make possession of a weapon without a license a crime, but make possession a requirement for obtaining a license. (Note: this is EXACTLY what was done a century ago with heroin).


"that a mentally unbalanced individual should not be able to get his hands on a gun so easily," he said. - hmmm. Define that term. "Mentally unbalanced." Note the criticisms coming out about the DSM-V that it will make everyone mentally ill.


"These steps shouldn't be controversial. They should be common sense." - that's a scary fucking statement. It's "common sense" to not consider such things as the Constitution and other forms of human rights. "Everything possible" is "common sense." Wow. I mean, wow.

My wife is hotter than your wife.