DescentBB

will provide the polling when it no doubt re-appears next week, and will also provide trending. I know I am correct on this one, Woody, so doubt all you want.

THIS just in, no doubt another 'gun-free' zone issue:http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/she ... li=BBieTUX

The problem that anti-gun people don’t seem to grasp is this…

Gun free zones don’t work unless you actually keep out the guns. The theory in itself is sound, but the application is pathetic…if you declare some place gun free…enforce it for gods sake!!

Because I have news for you…the honor system won’t work.

And if you can’t enforce the rule…then forget it, because you are just advertising…bullet fodder enclosed. No I don’t subscribe to the idea that we should all start carrying, but at the same time, you should NEVER mark a place gun free, at the very least a bad guy should be in doubt, as to whether there are arms present.

callmeslick wrote:
THIS just in, no doubt another 'gun-free' zone issue:http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/she ... li=BBieTUX

what in Gods name does this have to do with mass shootings in gun free zones? People shoot each other every day and it has nothing to do with GFZ's.

well, what DOES another mass shooting(3 people) have to do with gun free zones? Nothing, just the same as for EVERY mass shooting.
Oh, and feel free to explain why Congress prevents even the STUDY of the issue.

further, calling for the elimination of 'gun-free zones' after every mass shooting which occurs in someplace which can be stretched to be defined as such is merely as distraction, and that has become obvious. As was pointed out by another, above, the only counter is really to not only eliminate such restrictions but also to arm and train a huge number of citizens who wish no part of that. It seems that the online commenters have, recently, been invoking Australia more and more as a potential example of how to address mass shootings. While I do not agree with that, I think it does show a wholesale shift in tolerance for the 'we need MORE guns' approach.
I repeat a critical question: Why would ANY of you sit silently while Congress blocks even the STUDY of the issue of mass shootings in the US? It is ok to study Benghazi for 16 months, with no real intention of discovering anything of substance, but NOT to look into why nuts can obtain guns and shoot their fellow citizens? Sure, it is easy to say the core issue is mental health treatment, as virtually all of these things come down to emotional or mental instability. However, that issue dovetails with FAR too easy access to purchase, FAR too much difficulty separating folks who are dangerous from their guns and FAR too many smokescreens like the 'gun-free zone' nonsense. And, nonsense is exactly what that is.

callmeslick wrote:what you fail to add is that most Americans are equally sick of the folks IGNORING background checks

I addressed the majority of Americans wanting background checks right there in the post you quoted.

you all better be the LOUDEST voices demanding strict background checks, waiting periods, mandatory mental health checks, and restrictions on magazines and other technology which makes mass shootings easier

Yes, maybe, maybe, no, in that order.

Background checks are really important. Waiting periods are a balancing act -- there are people who want to buy guns because there have been specific threats to them, and others who want to buy guns because they're mad and going to go snap, and I don't know how you can reliably distinguish between the cases. Mandatory "mental health checks" sound good in theory, but also sound like literacy tests for voters -- something that the agency in power can abuse to disadvantage disfavored groups. Restrictions on magazines are a non-solution; they make little old ladies less able to protect themselves against multiple assailants, while not affecting mass shootings in any relevant way (it only takes 1.5 seconds to switch out a magazine.)

callmeslick wrote:the only counter is really to not only eliminate such restrictions but also to arm and train a huge number of citizens who wish no part of that

There are already plenty of trained citizens who, if gun-free zones didn't exist, would be carrying. There's no need to train extras, and definitely not to train people who don't want to be trained -- but there are plenty of elementary school teachers who shoot in their off time; I was talking to one yesterday who has gotten backlash from ignorant people who think teachers should never touch a gun even in their off hours. (The previous comment was talking about enforcing gun-free zones with armed guards, which is actually a counterpoint to your position, not to ours -- gun free zones only work in places like airports, where there are guys with guns and metal detectors making sure nobody else comes in with a gun.)

However, that issue dovetails with FAR too easy access to purchase, FAR too much difficulty separating folks who are dangerous from their guns and FAR too many smokescreens like the 'gun-free zone' nonsense.

You can keep calling it "nonsense" all you want, but it just makes you look less like the centerist you describe yourself as, and more like someone completely bought in to the bogus talking points of gun-banners.

Gun free zones don't work. They're target-rich environments. Yes, there's a lot more to do in terms of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and crazies, but giving them target-rich environments doesn't help. And yeah, sometimes shootings happen outside of official gun-free zones -- sometimes even in gun-rich zones like drug deals. But shootings are less likely to get really big if the shooter is getting shot at.

Also, Australia's gun ban was addressed in a previous thread. How about all those extra sexual assaults and robberies and such? That's a tradeoff nobody seems willing to directly address.

Lothar wrote:You can keep calling it "nonsense" all you want, but it just makes you look less like the centerist you describe yourself as, and more like someone completely bought in to the bogus talking points of gun-banners.

sorry, but being centrist does not entail embracing a failed reality. It is merely that I don't hold to any orthodoxy.

Gun free zones don't work. They're target-rich environments. Yes, there's a lot more to do in terms of keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and crazies, but giving them target-rich environments doesn't help. And yeah, sometimes shootings happen outside of official gun-free zones -- sometimes even in gun-rich zones like drug deals. But shootings are less likely to get really big if the shooter is getting shot at.

or not....as I showed, it is extremely possible to actually turn the situation into a WORSE nightmare. Why don't we spend some time and money and find out the MOST effective way to curtail mass violence? What is Congress afraid of finding out? As for the gun-free zone idiocy(sorry, I am down to being blunt because that is precisely what that argument is), so long as you accept that your fellow humans are targets(target-rich environment) and accept that as a status quo, I have little respect for your so-called committment to the rest of what you claim to support. We have to get to a point where anyone who views his fellow man as a target for violence is PREVENTED from obtaining a weapon in the first place. A school, a church, a restaurant, a movie theater should not become an armed camp because folks don't want it viewed as 'target rich'. No other nation in the world accepts that reality, except maybe third-world ★■◆●-holes in turmoil. Why would you settle for a US where a movie theater is a place to go be a 'target'?

Also, Australia's gun ban was addressed in a previous thread. How about all those extra sexual assaults and robberies and such? That's a tradeoff nobody seems willing to directly address.

as noted, I don't embrace that approach. It is worth noting that gun violence was on the decrease before the ban anyway.

callmeslick wrote:as I showed, it is extremely possible to actually turn the situation into a WORSE nightmare

Yes. Nobody contests that. Of course it's possible to make things worse.

Why don't we spend some time and money and find out the MOST effective way to curtail mass violence?

We probably should. But people keep wasting our time with solutions we already know aren't effective.

so long as you accept that your fellow humans are targets... We have to get to a point where anyone who views his fellow man as a target for violence is PREVENTED from obtaining a weapon in the first place

That would be nice, but this being reality, people will obtain weapons. Dudes in prison sharpen toothbrushes on the concrete. We should reduce the transmission rate of weapons to crazies (think epidemiology -- you can't set the rate to zero, but you try to reduce it) while simultaneously keeping society's first-response "immune system" strong. And since we don't have cops or soldiers on every corner, our true first-responders are people already on site. Letting people carry guns is kind of like recommending people have CPR training -- getting the proper response started within seconds, instead of waiting for 911 responders within minutes. Take guns out of the hands of citizens, and you make people into targets.

Lothar wrote:We probably should. But people keep wasting our time with solutions we already know aren't effective.

pretty much true, and I'm sure you would accept that folks on both sides can say this. That is precisely where we have to get down to serious study of the issue. Right now, we're ALL speculating, and, most of us are proposing SOMETHING, with little or no evidence that such would help.

so long as you accept that your fellow humans are targets... We have to get to a point where anyone who views his fellow man as a target for violence is PREVENTED from obtaining a weapon in the first place

That would be nice, but this being reality, people will obtain weapons. Dudes in prison sharpen toothbrushes on the concrete. We should reduce the transmission rate of weapons to crazies (think epidemiology -- you can't set the rate to zero, but you try to reduce it) while simultaneously keeping society's first-response "immune system" strong. And since we don't have cops or soldiers on every corner, our true first-responders are people already on site. Letting people carry guns is kind of like recommending people have CPR training -- getting the proper response started within seconds, instead of waiting for 911 responders within minutes. Take guns out of the hands of citizens, and you make people into targets.

I'll hear you out, but will agree to disagree. Only a very small minority of the population would ID their fellow man as targets. We have to figure out who those people are and make it far harder to obtain firearms. Why pick on guns(as you state, one can sharpen kitchet utensils)? Two reasons: ease of killing, speed of use over a larger area. Plus, if we can get FAR better at identifying signifiers for homicidally(is that word?) inclined persons, we would presumably help lower the chance of attacks with knives, rocks,zucchini or bone-in roasts as well.

This is going to complicate things. The shooter apparently asked the students what religion they were before he opened fire on them.

callmeslick wrote:Only a very small minority of the population would ID their fellow man as targets. We have to figure out who those people are and make it far harder to obtain firearms

and when a few of them obtain firearms, what do we do? Eventually it comes down to "we can shoot back" (not to mention, it's not always bad guys with guns who are intent on doing violence; sometimes it's bad guys with big muscles, being shot by little old ladies in wheelchairs.)

Trying to detect people who are about to snap is certainly a good idea. The implementation is questionable -- give the government of Georgia in the 1930s that power, and somehow all the black people in a certain neighborhood aren't allowed to have guns because they're "crazy" and for some reason the KKK is aware of this fact. This is the sort of system that would require very deep checks and balances in order to be even remotely viable.

tunnelcat wrote:This is going to complicate things. The shooter apparently asked the students what religion they were before he opened fire on them.

although not publicly IDd, they seem to feel the shooter was a person on a social media site that ranted about hatred for organized religion, among other things. It sort of sounds like he was telling the self-identified Christians that they were about to meet God.

Well…it didn’t take that “study” talking point long to get to this board.

Or, pay more attention to when people are starting to slide down the long path of mental illness.

callmeslick wrote:As for the gun-free zone idiocy(sorry, I am down to being blunt because that is precisely what that argument is), so long as you accept that your fellow humans are targets(target-rich environment) and accept that as a status quo, I have little respect for your so-called committment to the rest of what you claim to support.

It is called criminal psychology, something you are letting your political motives get in the way of even acknowledging as a rational approach to analyzing these events.

Spidey wrote:Well…it didn’t take that “study” talking point long to get to this board.

if you look back, I've brought it up before. Still never got ONE answer as to why that is unacceptable as part of a search for answers.

callmeslick wrote:

Lothar wrote:We probably should. But people keep wasting our time with solutions we already know aren't effective.

pretty much true, and I'm sure you would accept that folks on both sides can say this. That is precisely where we have to get down to serious study of the issue. Right now, we're ALL speculating, and, most of us are proposing SOMETHING, with little or no evidence that such

Well try this. Pass a law banning news outlets from telling the shooters name, making public his background or his picture. This latest shooter has mentioned how being a mass shooter immortalizes the shooter. Think I'm wrong? Tell me how many of the theater shooting victims you remember and do you remember Holmes name and what he looks like? Once we stop glorifying the shooter and make the victims known and heroes like the army vet who tried to stop the shooter maybe future worthless people will shoot themselves as they will know that they will not get the attention they crave.

Yea, that issue has been raised before…but nobody seems willing to address it, one can only wonder why there haven’t been these mass killings all throughout history. (this type, not the ones that have made sense)

Now all of these suicidal nut cases can become part of history, and therein lies the motive, at least in part. IMHO

I think you nailed a big part of it Woody.

What I don't understand Spidey, is why the left does not promote this first before "common sense" gun laws. Like I said before, back in the 50's and early 60's when buying a gun, there were no restrictions and there were no mass killings like we have today. Schools did not have gun free campuses (I brought my shotgun to college and kept it in my dorm room as did my roommate) and there was not a national hysteria that we see today. So why today and not then?

Ferno wrote:Or, pay more attention to when people are starting to slide down the long path of mental illness.

The problem is, using mental health as a criteria leads to the use of it as a political tool. It would be real easy to have a political party use that like the Dems did in the south by saying blacks were mentally unfit to own firearms. Then of course the KKK had a free hand to lynch them and burn crosses without fear of retribution. Today one could probably see where white males in their 20's could be declared mentally unfit to own a firearm. So is this where we want to go?

What I'd like to know is why the shooter, who was supposedly having mental issues which his mother knew about, owned 13 or 14 guns in the first place?

tunnelcat wrote:What I'd like to know is why the shooter, who was supposedly having mental issues which his mother knew about, owned 13 or 14 guns in the first place?

Was he still living with his mother?

Seems both of you cannot see beyond the ends of you noses:

The report by Susanne Posel, which was published Monday, indicates that increasingly the U.S. government is designating veterans who return home from service overseas as mentally unfit. Their firearms are then confiscated, and they are forced into psychiatric facilities to receive treatment for conditions as common and non-threatening as post traumatic stress.
Posel cites a recent case in which a former U.S. Marine was sentenced by a judge to 30 days in a psychiatric facility, only to have the ruling overturned by a circuit court judge who stated that there was no factual basis for the original petition.

http://www.examiner.com/article/veteran ... -hospitals

Feinstein said that she did not agree with an exemption for US veterans regarding access to guns. Because US veterans may have post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or have incurred a traumatic brain injury (TBI), they could be mentally ill and should be prohibited from being able to purchase a semiautomatic gun.

Obviously both of you did not bother to look into this. Still think I'm off base?

that is political? You DON'T have some awareness of the mental illness issues for vets that leads to what, 22 suicides per week, or some such? Part of the issue around recent vets and guns is to prevent SUICIDE. Does that seem political to you? It sure as hell doesn't to me. No there shouldn't be some sort of goofy exemption just because someone is a veteran. Mental illness is mental illness, no matter what the trigger, and PTSD is not some 'routine' condition without potentially deadly consequences.

forget it slick, he's not going to listen. he doesn't care.

if you allow subjective criteria like "mental health evaluation" to be used in order to deny someone important rights, there's high potential for abuse. It wasn't until 1970 that the US finally stopped allowing "voter literacy tests" that were designed to deny blacks the right to vote. So what happens if we allow "mental health evaluation" to be an important criterion for denying people gun rights? How do we then stop bigoted mental health professionals from denying permits to blacks, or Muslims, or Jews, or Republicans, or homosexuals? In an era where having a black-sounding name on your resume makes it less likely to get a call back, where women are viewed as "bossy" for the same behavior that makes a man "confident", and where all Muslims are viewed as potential terrorists, systemic bias is an even more substantial issue.

If we were talking about a "mental health evaluation" for voting rights, you guys would be having a cow. You'd be talking about voter intimidation, vote suppression, systemic bias, and probably bringing up Bush's 537-vote margin in the official results in Florida in 2000. It's a non-starter for voting, but for owning a means of self defense, it's a no-brainer? Really?

Do you have a workable solution to deal with both personal bigotry and systemic bias in administering mental health evaluations? Or did you guys dodge woodchip's point because you can't answer it?

mental health criteria is about as subjective as gravity.

Ferno wrote:mental health criteria is about as subjective as gravity.

The same could be said for literacy.

The issue is not the subjectivity of a mental health, it’s the objectivity of human beings.

Maybe what we really need is a test for evil, because the majority of mentally ill people never hurt anybody including themselves.

I think the mental illness we need to consider here is the health of the society itself, not the individual.

tunnelcat wrote:What I'd like to know is why the shooter, who was supposedly having mental issues which his mother knew about, owned 13 or 14 guns in the first place?

I just want to know why the hell anyone feels the need to own 14 separate guns. Like, unless they're non-functioning historical pieces, what sort of fucked-up mental processes are at work there? Do we really want to live in a society where people can accrue personal goddamn armories?

That point is about as relevant as “guns are made for killing” what the hell difference does it make…only takes one weapon to go on a killing spree.

Lothar wrote:The same could be said for literacy.

nope. not even close.

would you sell a firearm to someone diagnosed with multiple personality disorder, or antisocial personality disorder? Denialism won't work here, Lothar.

Lothar wrote:Do you have a workable solution to deal with both personal bigotry and systemic bias in administering mental health evaluations?

Yes, if it was my job to create such an system you can bet I'd do a bang-up job. You act like it's impossible to create workable systems with low to no bias, which is not true. Also, mental health is not completely subjective as many like to believe. A combination of highly targeted questions administered in-person with the aid of software that reads bio-infomation can create a highly accurate profile, which increases accuracy with use. Besides, evaluations can have a very low passing threshold. On the spectrum of "almost no risk at all" to "almost definitely a risk" all you need to do is capture the most severe outliers to make a huge impact. And it's not like there won't be an appeals process. Mix these evaluations with background checks that include mining public data and you can make a robust, effective, and objective system for filtering out threats.

And whether any of us like it or not, this type of thing will be common in the future. It's happening already.

Ferno wrote:

Lothar wrote:The same could be said for literacy.

nope. not even close.

Exactly. The. Same.

The issue isn't that we can't recognize problems. It's that as soon as you let people judge others' worthiness, you introduce the possibility not just of outright bigotry, but of implicit systemic bias.

I'm sure we can all name disorders that we think should disqualify someone from owning a firearm. But remember, homosexuality was classified as a psychiatric disorder by the World Health Organization up until 1990. Some people think religion is a dangerous mental disorder. Furthermore, there are people who have disorders of various sorts who nonetheless do face legitimate threats and have reason to need protection. Somebody can have multiple, peaceful personalities but also a vengeful ex-boyfriend; why should their diagnosis force them to be vulnerable? How do you propose we categorize mental illnesses, and put checks and balances in place, such that the system can't be abused by outright bigots and won't result in subtle systemic discrimination, and such that people can still buy firearms for personal protection?

I don't really need a complete answer to the above. I just want to see you take both parts seriously -- think about how outright bigots might abuse the system, and think about how implicit biases might leave certain people vulnerable who actually aren't a threat to anyone. (Like vision just did -- when I have time to respond to him I'll probably have some criticisms, but "you dodged the issue" will not be one of them.)

Lothar wrote:The issue isn't that we can't recognize problems. It's that as soon as you let people judge others' worthiness, you introduce the possibility not just of outright bigotry, but of implicit systemic bias.

/faceplam
we're talking about mental health professionals, doctors, specialists, giving the diagnoses. not a questionnaire that a merchant or government official hands out.

How do you propose we categorize mental illnesses, and put checks and balances in place

Simple. Consult with the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. If a name comes up during a background check that has been noted as having a disorder, it gets flagged.

Also, mental health is not completely subjective as many like to believe. A combination of highly targeted questions administered in-person with the aid of software that reads bio-infomation can create a highly accurate profile, which increases accuracy with use.

Thank you vision; for understanding the gravity of mental health.

Ferno wrote:

Lothar wrote:The issue isn't that we can't recognize problems. It's that as soon as you let people judge others' worthiness, you introduce the possibility not just of outright bigotry, but of implicit systemic bias.

we're talking about mental health professionals, doctors, specialists, giving the diagnoses.

And there have never been bigots in any of those professions.

How do you propose we categorize mental illnesses, and put checks and balances in place

Simple. Consult with the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology. If a name comes up during a background check that has been noted as having a disorder, it gets flagged.

Which disorders? Again, homosexuality was still categorized as a disorder when we were kids.

And what process do you propose for making sure that bigoted or biased doctors don't note someone as having a disorder maliciously? Here's just one example to consider -- Dr. Jones has been cheating on his wife. She finds out, leaves him, files for divorce, and takes everything. He starts threatening her. She wants a gun for protection -- but Dr. Jones has flagged her as mentally unstable. This is the sort of scenario you have to consider if you want to use mental health assessments as part of the background checks required for firearms.

Again, I'm not saying it's impossible (*vision), I'm just saying you have to take this sort of thing seriously and not just gloss over it.

Oh, and for what it's worth, I absolutely take mental health seriously. I have a special needs child. I have family members who have suffered from all sorts of mental health disorders. Suggesting that I think mental health diagnoses are "completely subjective" is way, way off. But there is some room for subjectivity, and room for implicit biases to creep in, even in terms of who gets referred for further evaluation and who doesn't.

Ducking the question, acting like we don't need to worry about doctors screwing up diagnoses or even intentionally malicious flagging, isn't good enough. Again, I point you to "voter literacy tests".