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

[pirana 0]

Quote

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)?

No. Takes the exam online, in a controlled environment, kind of like the written portion of a DL exam. If no flags, purchase approved. If the results fall below a certain score on certain scales, then the results are referred to a shrink for follow-up, further review, and decision. Easy enough; and nobody has to discuss their poo-flinging.

" . . . 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

[normiss 622]

OK. NOW I'm scared.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Are you saying you can tell if someone is guilty by looking at them?

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. But of course identifying loonies before they are allowed to buy guns is not acceptable to the NRA. They'd rather just see the dead buried as quietly as possible and blame placed elsewhere if that is what it takes to preserve the status quo.

Actual shrinks participating in this forum disagree. This seems like backseat driver bullshit, pirana. There is a small number of obviously unwell people - you commit them. But in a country with rights, they're not going to brand the 'maybes' with a life damaging diagnosis that will hurt their career as well as their gun rights. They're also not going to guarantee that others are perfectly safe. FFS, we already have a lawsuit against the movie studio for this event. The shrink that signed off on this guy is going to be the first to get sued. Even if you put in legal indemnity, there would still be reputational damage to the doctor.

You made a very specific suggestion - administer the MMPI to gun buyers - which is actually a huge improvement on Quade and others. Unfortunately, it's rife with problems.

This test needs to be administered by a trained psychologist, takes 90 minutes just to administer, plus evaluation time, plus a license fee to Minnesota. We''re talking hundreds of dollars. So we're talking about a massive poll tax that would filter out gun rights for the lower income levels. Just look at the discussions we're having over Voter ID laws as a poll tax and barrier to citizens' right to vote.

It's not going to be 100% effective, and likely not remotely close, or it will also affects far more in false positives. Would it have worked for this guy? He's bright and introverted, and who knows if he comes off like he did with the gun club. Would an MMPI be administered as part of a court evaluation for sanity?

If it's administered only once for the first gun purchase, it doesn't do anything down the road. If it's administered for every purchase, same problem applies, but perhaps you catch someone that is buying more. But then you have to set a standard for deny, and a standard for deny and seize all prior weapons. In this particular case, all purchases were recent, so not a concern.

Denied persons or those who fear they might be denied may choose to buy guns from other sources, be it private sales, straw buyers, or the criminal underground. The Columbine shooters were underage and obtained all their weapons outside of any system you propose. The current shooter may have had trouble on this avenue as he seemed to lack friends and was not socialable.

Finally, those who cannot seem to obtain gun may resort to other weapons. We see this clearly with this particular shooter. He had his apartment rigged with explosives. Others have used fire, their car, knives, swords, etc. The Columbine kids intended to start their day with a bomb under the cafeteria. It failed and they proceeded with their guns. Had they lacked guns, they instead would have attempted to fix the bomb. They weren't detected on the initial installation, so can't assume they would be caught on the repair.

End result - your proposal would impose considerable costs on a hundred million Americans and would not have prevented either of the mass shootings in Colorado.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

It is impossible for an individual, such as yourself, to prevent that

But possible for someone else to prevent it?

Quote

and no amount of you firing back turns back the clock on an event like that

No. It doesn't mean that it didn't happen. It does, however, run the chance of limiting 10 deaths to 3. Or 2.

As much as there are people who would like to make the death toll zero, it ain't going to happen. And once again, there seems to me to be some degree of prejudice with this. 37 homicides have been recorded in Chicago so far this month - home to some of the strictest anti-gun rules in the country. about 10% of those are stabbings.

Attention is diverted elsewhere. Not to say that it's not an issue worthy of attention. But people just don't give a shit about the massive number of homicides occurring in inner cities.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Attention is diverted elsewhere. Not to say that it's not an issue worthy of attention. But people just don't give a shit about the massive number of homicides occurring in inner cities.

Well, a considerable number of them are felons killing felons, so I think it's right to ignore many of them. But when they hit a kid in the crossfire*, or when this guy kills people in a movie theater, that is more significant a concern.

(* the biggest stupidity of proposals to put large taxes on bullets is it discourages target practice. Criminals don't care about their accuracy very much, so the only people that pay are the ones that aren't doing drive bys)

[quade 3]

Look at the topic, now look at your post.

The topic of this thread is, "How do you stop massacres by mentally unstable people using guns?"

If you want to talk about the ridiculousness of guns in the hands of the common criminals, that's a worthy discussion, but not what this thread is about.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[normiss 622]

What if the only answer is "You don't"?

[quade 3]

Quote

What if the only answer is "You don't"?

Then you've given up.

What's the matter? Aren't you one of those guys who wanted to continue to fight even until your dying breath? I could have sworn you said as much just a few posts ago. Why give up on attempting to find solutions? Your mental magazine out of IQ bullets? I hope not.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

What if the only answer is "You don't"?

Then you've given up.

What's the matter? Aren't you one of those guys who wanted to continue to fight even until your dying breath? I could have sworn you said as much just a few posts ago. Why give up on attempting to find solutions? Your mental magazine out of IQ bullets? I hope not.

You can still be looking while having an answer of "none exist currently."

Pirana put out one. It's worse than the problem, so we continue to wait for one that isn't. But given a choice of a terrible cure, or the status quo, we take the status quo.

[normiss 622]

Agreed.

[davjohns 1]

Quote

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.

Ummmm....so nobody should have called the police? What do you think the police would do? My guess would be...fire back. And do you really want me to make you feel bad by telling you how often the average police officer practices with his or her weapon? Everyone I know who packs is a better shot than most police officers.

You are right that the guy would have stormed the theater regardless of the presence of armed people inside. However, the length of time he had to wreak carnage would have likely been cut much shorter. I am willing to bet many people who were in that theater that day wish someone had been firing back at the attacker.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[billvon 2,396]

> I am willing to bet many people who were in that theater that day wish someone had
> been firing back at the attacker.

I agree there. However, had that someone killed a few people in his attempt to hit an armored target in a dark, smoky theater - the families of the people he hit might have wished that he'd kept his gun at home. We'll never know.

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

I think a problem is that even seeking mental health treatment results in such a huge potential loss of status, as well as more tangible things like 2nd amendment rights and in many fields future employment possibilities, that most people who would benefit from treatment are dissuaded from seeking it.

i think that is a bloody good point well made.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

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

i think on reflection that the thread title was not all that helpful, no one suddenly becomes mentally unstable. I think for the vast majority its a slow process part of which is physical disconnection from society, maybe if society was more attuned to this phenomena (see Davjohns0's posts) such events might be less likely to occur. Surely early intervention is the way forward. I also fully agree with your comments on social and professional stigmatisation preventing those most in need of intervention from seeking it.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[davjohns 1]

Quote

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

I don't think I suggested taking away anyone's rights based on a photo. I said that I can tell from the images of this guy that something isn't quite right. Surely someone closer to him could have figured it out and taken some responsibility for their fellow human being. I understand (from your post) that he was far from family. Surely he was interacting with someone if he was in a PhD program.

Moreover, if you are right and there was no reasonable expectation that someone close to him could have seen then, I have to return to my underlying premise that there is nothing the government can do. If people close to him did not know, what chance does the government have to intervene?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

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.

I'm wondering if the US health system has some part in the frequency of these type of events? What is the provision of mental healthcare like in the US? Considering that you have to pay or have insurance to access healthcare could it be the case that people who most need psychiatric intervention are most likely the least likely to seek it. How could people who are beginning to crack be prevented from progressing down the path of mental ill heath in the first place?

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[davjohns 1]

I'll throw this out there. Not a perfect analogy and some will take issue with it, but it illustrates a point (my point).

Elderly are not regularly screened to determine if they can still pilot a car safely. We all know there are elderly on the road that are a hazard. There's no government system to move them off the road.

I recall a friend returning from leave one time to describe to me how he went to visit his parents and ended up taking his father's car away from him. He made provisions for his parents to get transported by his sister, but he had to be the one to take the car. Of course, his father unleashed hell on him about it. But my friend recognized that his father was a danger to others and took action. Legally, he had no authority. However, it was the right thing to do. He re-claimed authority and responsibility that friends and family used to have and exercise.

I recommend that if people in our society were willing to take responsibility for those around them, rather than expect the government to do things, we could stop some problems. This massacre might or might not have been one of them. But government is just not the answer.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[normiss 622]

It most certainly is.

I recall when Welbutrin/Zyban/Bupropion first started being prescribed for a stop smoking aid.

IIRC, Zyban is the 'flavor' used for anti-smoking whereas the others are for depression. Healthcare plans where I was working at the time covered mental health but not smoking cessation. The techs working for me that were trying to quit preferred to take the Zyban and pay out of pocket so as to not have a recorded depression issue in their health records.
If these drugs and others can be used for different purposes, the risk of being mislabeled in your records seems fairly likely.
People will make choices to protect themselves.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

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.

Except in this case a law-abiding citizen was able to legally acquire a little arsenal for illegal purposes.

I also like how, the same people who hold very heavily to the fact that an additional gun in the theatre could have drastically changed the outcome, those same people are convinced that without guns this guy would have blown up a theatre.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

I am willing to bet many people who were in that theater that day wish someone had been firing back at the attacker.

I am willing to bet many people who were in that theatre wish 1) there wasn't anybody shooting 2) it had been a lot harder for this guy to aqcuire guns.

Just another perspective.

[normiss 622]

So how do you think we stop law abiding citizens from wigging out then?

I'm not sure anyone here is trying to claim that it "could have drastically changed the outcome" - but I'd prefer a fighting chance (or option for it) over execution.
Given the way he rigged his apartment building, it would appear to be a very real possibility that he would have made a bomb - cause he did.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

but I'd prefer a fighting chance (or option for it) over execution.

Right, you are willing to hang on to a miniscule possibility.

Yet, you are completely unwilling to acknowledge any possibility that if guns were a lot harder to come by, this wouldn't have happened in the first place.

Quote

So how do you think we stop law abiding citizens from wigging out then?

You don't, not in all cases. So, the next logical quesion IMHO is, how do we minimize the damage when they do.

This is where your answer is that you will use your gun and rely on the long odds to just save yourself.

This is where my answer is more along the lines of making guns a lot harder to get and rely on the long odds that it saves a lot of people by preventing some of these occurences.

You and I will not likely ever agree on a solution.

[davjohns 1]

If he didn't have a gun, he could have easily driven his car through a playground full of kids. It has happened before. Didn't get much press. Nobody wants to take away other people's right to own a cadillac.

I'll recommend that we go back a few decades (said this before). Some on this forum want to make sure gun owners are competent with guns. No sweat. Mandatory military service. Everyone gets trained early. Works for the Swiss just fine.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[normiss 622]

So we outlaw all guns.

Then what?
You want to take my Bridgeport?

Or will that require a background check now?
22 fired anchoring systems used in construction?
There are a ton of deadly weapons on this planet that are equally as accessible as guns.

We're gonna need more laws.
Should be good for the economy too.
More jobs in the justice system.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

everyone can claim insanity nowadays, and be removed from society and taken care of for life

I don't think you understand how such a defense works. It's not so simple as just claiming insanity. There is a standard of proof that must be met.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!