Richard Martinez will not be silenced. It is very hard, as a parent, not to agree with this man. I think that is what many of us simply do not understand. After Sandy Hook, what more will it take to have some sort of gun reform and some sort of mental health reform? Just what WILL it take?
His rage, sorrow, tenacity and determination seem to be the perfect storm. I hope he is successful in capturing the ears and commitment of America. Tech wasn’t enough. Giffords wasn’t enough. Aurora wasn’t enough. Sandy Hook wasn’t enough. Just what IS enough?
Mr. Martinez’s anguish goes beyond grief.
While I can sympathize with this man’s sorrow, let’s look at this objectively. First, California has some of the strictest gun-laws in the country. 10-day waiting periods. Single purchases only. Discretionary permitting system. Limits on magazine capacity. Recordation of ammunition purchases. Whole classes of firearms prohibited. Every sale background checked, every sale loophole closed. All of the “reasonable” controls are in place.
This very troubled individual had been in the care of the mental health system, since he was 8 years old. That’s 14 years. His behavior was such that his family contacted law enforcement. They interviewed him and said he was a “wonderful human being”. They didn’t search his apartment. They didn’t examine his social media and web video postings. No, they just interviewed him and deemed the concerns of his family “unfounded”.
This individual led a live of privilege and was for want of nothing material, nor was quality medical and psychiatric care denied him. He had the cars, the house, the travel. Everything. But he wanted a girlfriend who would give him sex.
So, he was angry and isolated, and hard up for companionship. So, he went through three background checks, three waiting periods, and acquired handguns and ammunition legally through a heavily regulated system. He snowed the authorities who did nothing more than a “check the box” interview, and didn’t go beyond this, even though the psychiatric history was there, and the social media evidence was there. He wrote a long manifesto outlining his plans. He posted youtube videos. He bought a machete. He planned his crime in detail.
He hacked three victims to death. He shot three. He ran several over with his car. Yet it’s somehow the guns fault? It’s the NRA’s fault? The answer is more gun-control? How about knife and car control? Is the AAA at fault?
I sympathize with the families of the victims. However, if gun-control interests want to hold this up as an example of why more gun control is the answer, they will fail. This guy was a freaking ticking time-bomb, and was determined to kill people, and clearly denial of access to a firearm wasn’t going to stop him. The mental health system, and law enforcement failed. If you are going to blame the guns, then you have to blame the knife and the car too. While we’re at it, lets blame Hollywood, video games, and Caucasian males in general (yep, the media is doing it) Here’s a thought: Let’s blame the psycho, and not the tools that he chooses.
I have never just blamed gun laws. I blame our entire way of doing business with mental health issues as much or more so than gun laws. I also blame media like video games, perhaps to a lesser degree. Craig Deeds’ son’s tragic case is living proof that the mental health system is in poor shape. So is law enforcement when dealing with the mentally ill.
I can remember over 30 years ago when our neighborhood loony attacked both the sheriff’s deputies and cops with a frying pan. It was her weapon of choice every time she got too nutzoid for everyone to stand. These people aren’t really trained for the assessments they are being asked to do. I also think the laws are far too restrictive on mental health and law enforcement and what they can do when people are walking time bombs. We can’t wait for them to “do something.” Then you just have a bunch of dead people…usually young people because these rampages seem to afflict young people more frequently.
However, I am not going to let the gun position off the hook. That idiot LePierre simply closes the door to all discussion of what needs to happen to make us safer. Too many people can have access to guns. It will never be perfect but a serious freaking problem has been reduced to bumper sticker slogans and that is just plain wrong.
I think the California laws are good. None of them take my rights away. there has to be a good balance. Law enforcement apparently got flummoxed.
Steve, you are one of my favorite people but I just gotta say it…when these tragedies happen, the gun people all jump to the defense of gun owners. Somewhere along the way, you all are going to have to come up with some core changes that throw some barriers in the road for nut cases. Maybe these changes need to be in combination with law enforcement and mental health changes. The gun people always throw in and tell us how it isn’t their fault and nothing could be done to stop it. I disagree.
The frequency of nut cases wiping out scores of people is increasing….far too much.
Moon,
I will give you credit in that at least you see the root of the problem (mental health). Glad I’m one of your favs, and value this status. In response I will offer this: The NRA, GOA, VCDL, USCCA, and every single pro-2A group of which I am a member, supports better mental-health reporting. Also, perhaps the “gun people” wouldn’t go on “auto-defense” if the knee-jerk reaction of the media and anti-gunners wasn’t “blame the guns and the NRA”. This latest spree-killing is the PERFECT example. Stabbings, Vehicular assault, and shooting. Not a peep about anything except guns.
As far as California’s laws go, they would limit my rights, if I lived there. I don’t and won’t. I’m a states-rights guy. If Californians want those laws, they can have them. I think they suck, because all they do is restrict the rights of the law-abiding, and do nothing to prevent the criminal or the insane (which this incident illustrates perfectly).
Why do I carry a gun? Because a cop is too heavy.
Maybe a jockey cop? Sorry…bad joke. Steve, I know that this is an incredibly important issue to you. You also know my incredibly important issue. I don’t think I have an unlimited right to abortion. T*here are some limits and some of those limits vary because of circumstances.
I am not a states rights person. I grew up with states rights people who I think might have still been trying to rekindle the Civil War. The people I knew anything about that I am descended from lived through all that. I sort of thought their side lost and states rights were very limited. Southerners of my generation sometimes have identity problems.
I do blame the NRA for a lot of the BS because they have changed so radically and so uncompromisingly. LePierre shoots off his mouth and so do some of the representatives like Cat Scratch and some of the other people I despise. I don’t despise Magnum PI or people who talk responsibility.
I am concerned when gun owners are willing to look for solutions, gun owners like the Giffords, and many others, are thought of as screaming liberals.
@Steve Thomas
In California…..law enforcement can even access medical records. He didn’t have to be adjudicated to be stopped.
And yet…they want the same people enforcing MORE laws, expecting a different result.
who is they?
I can’t imagine California allowing law enforcement to access mental health records without some sort of court order. Did I misunderstand?
@Moon-howler
Actually, only Mark Kelly is the hypocrite.
He advocates strict gun control, including “assault weapon” bans. Then he’s caught buying an AR-15. When confronted, he states that he is merely buying it to turn into the police. THAT would have made the purchase illegal under federal law….a straw purchase. The intended owner was not the one on the the form.
The gun shop cancelled the sale.
I don’t know that he advocates something his wife doesn’t advocate. I don’t think they want strict gun laws.
Who caught him? Do you have documentation of that encounter not in some right wing ‘periodical?’ I would like to read about the facts without the editorializing that sometimes accompanies stories like this.
Moon, I know what your “go to the mat” issue is, and I will offer this: the existence of a monster like Kermit Gossnell is an aberration, and as much as it grabs attention, doesn’t represent the norm. Yet when the expose movie comes out, those on your side of the issue will dig in and defend, saying this doesn’t represent the norm, and should not serve to limit a perceived constitutional rigjt
. I’ll also offer this to refute the perception that spree killings are on the rise: http://m.cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/matt-vespa/data-suggest-gun-violence-epidemic-actually-mental-illness-scourge-shootings?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Marketing&utm_term=Facebook&utm_content=Facebook&utm_campaign=B-gunviolence
Kermit Gossnell wasn’t performing legal abortions. The pro choice community wanted his sorry ass in jail as much as everyone else did.
Somehow people think he was defended. I can think of no one who defended him. He represents everything that men and women fought against pre-1973.
The norm is not illegal abortion. Not today.
Those cops in Santa Barbara were asked at one point by the kid’s parents to make a “welfare check” on him. The parents in Los Angeles must have voiced some concerns that should have alerted the cops to some sort of unusual problem. Welfare check? This was a 22-year-old college kid, not some Granny living all alone in her declining years. Did the cops ask enough questions? What were they told about the kid’s problems and the parents’ concerns for him? And why on earth did the cops not check the state gun purchase data before going to his apartment? They would have found three separate purchases of handguns at three separate retail outlets at three separate times. That would have raised the flags a lot higher, if just for the safety of the investigating officers.
We just keep failing to connect the dots, even when the info is sitting there for the finding.
I hate to suggest this but it sounds like no two states have similar protocol. Maybe there needs to be central, national protocol for investigating nuts.
I don’t see answers but if we talk about it and continue discussion, we are bound to find a better mouse trap–anything beats what we have now.
Everyone is to be congratulated for continuing a very adult discussion. I think everyone has perhaps seen things from a different perspective, even if we don'[t agree.
Moon,
This is a great article, which makes couple of logical conclusions:
http://markmanson.net/school-shootings
Yes and no. I think he is playing a little loosey goosey with facts.
I am not so sure I agree with these statements. Manson (any relation to Charlie?) takes a quantum leap in his assumptions. I think we can all agree that violent video games (as well as movies) can desensitize some individuals. No one cause/effect but sometimes the perfect storm is created when a sick mind is involved. Sick minds are also chemical imbalances, not improper potty training as a child like I was taught as a psych major back in the dark ages.Sick minds are more susceptible to stimulus in some cases.
Steve, will you agree that there are some people who should not be allowed to own guns or have access to them?
And the norm is not for a gun owner to go in a spree killing. The norm is people buy guns and use them for lawful purposes, like sporting, hunting, security, and legitimate self-defense. The aberration is for a criminal to use them in the commission of a crime. Somehow, people think that the NRA and Wayne Lapierre defend these criminal actions, when all the NRA ever calls for is effective enforcement of existing law. Criminals having access to guns is not what the NRA has fought for since 1873.
So explain to me how we separate the shaft from the wheat here on this one.
While the norm is not for gun owners to go on killing sprees, we have 30,000 gun deaths annually. Some of that is suicide, some homicide/manslaughter, some accidental. Gosnell is not a good analogy.
How do you sort through who should own a gun and who shouldn’t? How do we tell who are the bad guys?
I don’t mind waiting a few days or filling out extra paperwork at all if it makes us all safer. I don’t mind certifying that I know how to use the firearm I am purchasing. I don’t really see where my rights are being denied. I also don’t mind anyone knowing I bought a gun. I don’t expect my government to send in storm troopers to take it away from me. I just don’t think that way.
Also, something that the media and gun control advocates never seem to want to discuss, is the possibility that we are the most medicated society in the history of man, might have something to do with the spree-killings:
•Eric Harris age 17 (first on Zoloft then Luvox) and Dylan Klebold aged 18 (Columbine school shooting in Littleton, Colorado), killed 12 students and 1 teacher, and wounded 23 others, before killing themselves. Klebold’s medical records have never been made available to the public.
•Jeff Weise, age 16, had been prescribed 60 mg/day of Prozac (three times the average starting dose for adults!) when he shot his grandfather, his grandfather’s girlfriend and many fellow students at Red Lake, Minnesota. He then shot himself. 10 dead, 12 wounded.
•Cory Baadsgaard, age 16, Wahluke (Washington state) High School, was on Paxil (which caused him to have hallucinations) when he took a rifle to his high school and held 23 classmates hostage. He has no memory of the event.
•Chris Fetters, age 13, killed his favorite aunt while taking Prozac.
•Christopher Pittman, age 12, murdered both his grandparents while taking Zoloft.
•Mathew Miller, age 13, hanged himself in his bedroom closet after taking Zoloft for 6 days.
•Kip Kinkel, age 15, (on Prozac and Ritalin) shot his parents while they slept then went to school and opened fire killing 2 classmates and injuring 22 shortly after beginning Prozac treatment.
•Luke Woodham, age 16 (Prozac) killed his mother and then killed two students, wounding six others.
•A boy in Pocatello, ID (Zoloft) in 1998 had a Zoloft-induced seizure that caused an armed stand off at his school.
•Michael Carneal (Ritalin), age 14, opened fire on students at a high school prayer meeting in West Paducah, Kentucky. Three teenagers were killed, five others were wounded..
•A young man in Huntsville, Alabama (Ritalin) went psychotic chopping up his parents with an ax and also killing one sibling and almost murdering another.
•Andrew Golden, age 11, (Ritalin) and Mitchell Johnson, aged 14, (Ritalin) shot 15 people, killing four students, one teacher, and wounding 10 others.
•TJ Solomon, age 15, (Ritalin) high school student in Conyers, Georgia opened fire on and wounded six of his class mates.
•Rod Mathews, age 14, (Ritalin) beat a classmate to death with a bat.
•James Wilson, age 19, (various psychiatric drugs) from Breenwood, South Carolina, took a .22 caliber revolver into an elementary school killing two young girls, and wounding seven other children and two teachers.
•Elizabeth Bush, age 13, (Paxil) was responsible for a school shooting in Pennsylvania
•Jason Hoffman (Effexor and Celexa) – school shooting in El Cajon, California
•Jarred Viktor, age 15, (Paxil), after five days on Paxil he stabbed his grandmother 61 times.
•Chris Shanahan, age 15 (Paxil) in Rigby, ID who out of the blue killed a woman.
•Jeff Franklin (Prozac and Ritalin), Huntsville, AL, killed his parents as they came home from work using a sledge hammer, hatchet, butcher knife and mechanic’s file, then attacked his younger brothers and sister.
•Neal Furrow (Prozac) in LA Jewish school shooting reported to have been court-ordered to be on Prozac along with several other medications.
•Kevin Rider, age 14, was withdrawing from Prozac when he died from a gunshot wound to his head. Initially it was ruled a suicide, but two years later, the investigation into his death was opened as a possible homicide. The prime suspect, also age 14, had been taking Zoloft and other SSRI antidepressants.
•Alex Kim, age 13, hanged himself shortly after his Lexapro prescription had been doubled.
•Diane Routhier was prescribed Welbutrin for gallstone problems. Six days later, after suffering many adverse effects of the drug, she shot herself.
•Billy Willkomm, an accomplished wrestler and a University of Florida student, was prescribed Prozac at the age of 17. His family found him dead of suicide – hanging from a tall ladder at the family’s Gulf Shore Boulevard home in July 2002.
•Kara Jaye Anne Fuller-Otter, age 12, was on Paxil when she hanged herself from a hook in her closet. Kara’s parents said “…. the damn doctor wouldn’t take her off it and I asked him to when we went in on the second visit. I told him I thought she was having some sort of reaction to Paxil…”)
•Gareth Christian, Vancouver, age 18, was on Paxil when he committed suicide in 2002,
•(Gareth’s father could not accept his son’s death and killed himself.)
•Julie Woodward, age 17, was on Zoloft when she hanged herself in her family’s detached garage.
•Matthew Miller was 13 when he saw a psychiatrist because he was having difficulty at school. The psychiatrist gave him samples of Zoloft. Seven days later his mother found him dead, hanging by a belt from a laundry hook in his closet.
•Kurt Danysh, age 18, and on Prozac, killed his father with a shotgun. He is now behind prison bars, and writes letters, trying to warn the world that SSRI drugs can kill.
•Woody ____, age 37, committed suicide while in his 5th week of taking Zoloft. Shortly before his death his physician suggested doubling the dose of the drug. He had seen his physician only for insomnia. He had never been depressed, nor did he have any history of any mental illness symptoms.
•A boy from Houston, age 10, shot and killed his father after his Prozac dosage was increased.
•Hammad Memon, age 15, shot and killed a fellow middle school student. He had been diagnosed with ADHD and depression and was taking Zoloft and “other drugs for the conditions.”
•Matti Saari, a 22-year-old culinary student, shot and killed 9 students and a teacher, and wounded another student, before killing himself. Saari was taking an SSRI and a benzodiazapine.
•Steven Kazmierczak, age 27, shot and killed five people and wounded 21 others before killing himself in a Northern Illinois University auditorium. According to his girlfriend, he had recently been taking Prozac, Xanax and Ambien. Toxicology results showed that he still had trace amounts of Xanax in his system.
•Finnish gunman Pekka-Eric Auvinen, age 18, had been taking antidepressants before he killed eight people and wounded a dozen more at Jokela High School – then he committed suicide.
•Asa Coon from Cleveland, age 14, shot and wounded four before taking his own life. Court records show Coon was on Trazodone.
•Jon Romano, age 16, on medication for depression, fired a shotgun at a teacher in his New York high school…
Read more at http://libertycrier.com/nearly-every-mass-shooting-last-20-years-shares-one-thing-common-weapons/#ecSkuCsmY9lKsxok.99
Not sure cause and effect has been established. In fact, I might say these individuals had problems and that is WHY they were on psychotropic drugs. What came first, the chicken or the egg?
Perhaps we should be questioning why these kids were still in society rather than institutionalized. That seems like the more relevant question.
I am not anti-gun … I like the idea that if this guy or the next psycho tries to go on a Virginia Tech styled shooting spree, someone with a gun can shoot him.
But I do think we should enable ourselves and law enforcement to connect dots and keep guns out of hands of those likely to crack. Because such people – who are born crazy, it’s not the fault of society or bad parenting – will always be among us.
They didn’t search his apartment, they didn’t search out his youtube posts – why would they? No crime was alleged. We have freedom of speech; we have freedom against spurious searches.
Meanwhile, the gun laws only care about crimes committed or whether someone was institutionalized.
I don’t see why we can’t or shouldn’t want a more stringent process for acquiring guns, that might involve taking a look at a kid’s youtube posts. Or taking tips from parents or associates that maybe so-and-so shows signs of going off and ideally shouldn’t be sold a gun.
I don’t accept that gun ownership is an unregulated right. In fact, it’s not. But the pro-gun lobby wants to act as if it’s fundamental, and that any type of regulation is a fascist takeover of America.
Again, if we can collectively figure out how best to market products to Elliot Rodger – theoretically Amazon might be figuring out what types of ammo to recommend to him the next time he logs in (we recommend : The turner diaries and holow-point such-and-suchs- or what types of movies he will want to watch next (documentaries about Columbine?) – and the NSA is snooping in looking for alignment with terrorist organizations – I think that we should also consider trying to figure out, if he’s actively looking to buy guns, whether he is expressing rage.
Rick said :
Part of the problem is the pro gun lobby’s rhetoric each and every time. Just hearing “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people” makes me want to punch someone in the face. We have to assume that some people in society just shouldn’t own guns. How do we sort out who should and who shouldn’t. I don’t think we take the default of everyone owns and then start crossing folks off the list. This is 2014, not the wild west.
Does law enforcement even talk to each other? How about gun dealers. Is there a computerized list? There wasn’t five years ago. How about convicted felons? Can you go to another state and buy a gun? I feel more comfortable with convicted felons owning guns. In fact, a convicted felon going straight should have the right to defend themselves. One is isn’t going straight is going to have a gun anyway, if they want one.
“But I do think we should enable ourselves and law enforcement to connect dots and keep guns out of hands of those likely to crack. Because such people – who are born crazy, it’s not the fault of society or bad parenting – will always be among us.”
On this we can agree.
I think all of us agree on that. So how do we take that Venn Diagram overlap and make sure that those in the overlap don’t get guns (or other things if we determine that to be a good idea)?
If we define crazy as a chemical imbalance does it help or hurt? Should anyone seeking psychological counseling be prevented from owning a gun? That is the damn danger if we approach it straight from a mental health point of view.
Moon, re: Cause and effect: While I’m not sure there is an iron clad case, these warnings appear on these and other SSRI medications. Why are they not institutionalized? Surely you jest.
Paxil side effects: Patients and their families should watch out for new or worsening thoughts of suicide or depression. Also watch out for sudden changes in feelings such as feeling anxious, agitated, panicky, irritable, hostile, aggressive, impulsive, severely restless, overly excited and hyperactive, or not being able to sleep. If this happens, especially at the beginning of treatment or after a change in dose, call your health care professional.
Prozac side effects: Prozac is one of the few antidepressants approved for the treatment of depression in youths. Unfortunately, however, studies on children have linked the drug to increased suicidal thoughts and behavior. As a result, the FDA issued a public warning in October 2004, and two years later extended the advisory to include young adults as old as 24.
Zoloft side effects: You should know that your mental health may change in unexpected ways when you take sertraline or other antidepressants even if you are an adult over 24 years of age. You may become suicidal, especially at the beginning of your treatment and any time that your dose is increased or decreased. You, your family, or your caregiver should call your doctor right away if you experience any of the following symptoms: new or worsening depression; thinking about harming or killing yourself, or planning or trying to do so; extreme worry; agitation; panic attacks; difficulty falling asleep or staying asleep; aggressive behavior; irritability; acting without thinking; severe restlessness; and frenzied abnormal excitement. Be sure that your family or caregiver knows which symptoms may be serious so they can call the doctor if you are unable to seek treatment on your own.
Those possible side effects still don’t establish a cause/effect. Could it be that the mental illness caused to violent behavior?
Meanwhile, the snake-oil salesmen at the NRA want to convince us that until we “fix the mental health system” (comprehensively?), nothing can be done.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/nra-chief-wayne-la-pierre-broken-mental-health-system-fixed-rejects-calls-gun-control-legilsation-article-1.1463887
Rather that being interested in keeping crazy people away from guns, the NRA thinks the answer is to commit more people to mental institutions. Reflexive, evil, unthinking bulls***.
I confess. I want to commit more people to mental institutions and I want to keep crazy people away from guns. I never approved of emptying institutions like they did in the 70’s. Then all of a sudden we had street people eating out of garbage cans.
Happy medium here.
“Does law enforcement even talk to each other? How about gun dealers. Is there a computerized list? There wasn’t five years ago. How about convicted felons? Can you go to another state and buy a gun? I feel more comfortable with convicted felons owning guns. In fact, a convicted felon going straight should have the right to defend themselves. One is isn’t going straight is going to have a gun anyway, if they want one.”
Moon, you are incorrect. There has been a computerized list, (National Criminal Instant Check System) run by the FBI since 1993. All purchasers from a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) must be background checked. States report felons and those adjudicated as prohibited due to mental deficiency to the system. In Virginia, data upload is handled by the State Police. All checks are conducted by the State Police. If a felon from one state tries to purchase in another, they will be caught by the system. If an individual is committed to a mental institution by court order, even for a three-day observation, they will be reported to the system. All FFL sales whether conducted at a gun show, gun store, or in the FFL’s home are checked against the NCIS system. People get denied all the time. the DOJ is supposed to prosecute them if they attempt to purchase a weapon, when they are a prohibited person. Prosecutions by our current USAG are WAY down.
Now, before anyone starts talking about “loop holes” there aren’t any. Private sales are permitted in VA. I could sell a gun from my collection, to an individual, without a background check. However, if I do so with the knowledge that the person is prohibited, I will be subject to prosecution. If I purchase a firearm on behalf of a prohibited person (straw purchase) I would be subject to prosecution. A TINY fraction of transfers happen without a background check, and of these, an even smaller percentage are ever used in crime. Criminals get their guns mostly through theft. Some get them by having them straw-purchased. Both require an illegal act, in order for the criminal to get the gun. Therefore, stricter laws, like the ones in CA, rarely have a positive impact on crime.
I am pro-background check. So is the NRA, GOA, VCDL, etc. etc. But the old adage holds true: garbage in, garbage out. If the authorities are not willing to act upon credible information regarding someone’s mental state, how will the data ever get into the system to be background checked? If a felon has his girlfriend go buy him a gun from a gunshop, and the girlfriend attests that she will be the owner of the gun (a crime), how will that pop up in a background check? If someone breaks into a home and steals a gun, then sells it to another criminal, how would a database prevent this?
I probably am wrong. Time gets away from me. ATF used to keep its records in shoe boxes. When did they switch over to the 21st century?
As for felons, felons aren’t the problem with mass murders. That’s a whole other issue, which I might be willing to discuss, along with losing voting rights. I think it is rather silly to be honest. Crooks can pick up a gun the day they get out of jail or prison. guns are that prolific. Someone trying to improve their life is barred from having anything to do with a gun for life, even if their crime had nothing to do with gun violence. Who out there is going to advocate for giving former criminals gun rights? No one.
One more thing…(I am watching JOBS (the film) this afternoon) I, unlike Scout, dislike open carry laws. I want people to keep their weapons on the QT. I just got an email from my aunt telling me she was in Walmart and some clown was in there carrying open and had a baby with him. The baby was fingering the gun. GEEZ. Now that person shouldn’t be allowed to have guns or a kid.
“Rather that being interested in keeping crazy people away from guns, the NRA thinks the answer is to commit more people to mental institutions. Reflexive, evil, unthinking bulls***.”
Rick, what’s your solution, and specifically, which of these spree-killings would have been prevented, had your solution been implemented?
I don’t have a “solution” that will prevent massacres, but my recommended course of action is that we start to take the idea of licensing firearms more seriously. To include checks for psychological imbalance or rage.
Step A towards that would be for the right wing to stop pretending that the government is coming to kill or subjugate them. And to acknowledge that not everyone needs a gun.
“If the authorities are not willing to act upon credible information regarding someone’s mental state, how will the data ever get into the system to be background checked?”
What did you want “the authorities” to do here? Commit for observation everyone who posts that kind of thing on youtube or facebook?
If being paranoid and wishing harm on others were a crime, at least half of GOP voters would be behind bars right now …
(And a healthy amount of Democrats too, of course).
As far as how to cull information on people’s facebook and youtube accounts, that wouldn’t be hard at all. Technology is a force multiplier these days in terms of investigating people and looking for warning flags. The challenge wouldn’t be in feeding investigators information that’s relevant. The challenge is in getting people to agree on how to move forward in our increasingly polarized society. To agree on what is and isn’t worth doing.
Because, you know, Obama is trying to invade everyone’s liberty by confiscating their guns, getting them on welfare, and (gasp!) forcing everyone to pay for a share of their health care. It’s only patriots like Wayne LaPierre who stand between us, and subjugation and socialism.
Well Rick, if you don’t have a solution that would have prevented a spree-killing, why do you use spree-killings as a justification for restricting the exercise of a constitutional right? Also, I don’t recall any group I belong to every advocating that “everyone” should own a gun. As far as committing everyone who makes a threat on social media, no, I don’t think that it’s rational. What I do think is rational is to do more than “we talked to X, and they seemed OK to us” which has happened plenty of times (VA Tech, Navy Yard, Roger, Aurora, et. al.)
“justification for restricting the exercise of a constitutional right”
The Supreme Court ruled long ago that the right to bear arms is not unlimited. And as we’ve each referenced, states (and the Federal Government) do limit this right for general welfare. Are you objecting to that?
Or are you reflexively objecting to any type of change, i.e. erosion, in the current system of preclusion?
“What I do think is rational is to do more than “we talked to X, and they seemed OK to us” which has happened plenty of times (VA Tech, Navy Yard, Roger, Aurora, et. al.)”
Okay, so we identify what I’ll call “likely nuts”. And what do we do with that list?
Publish them in a public list of people to “date at your own peril”? Make them listen to Pharrell’s “Happy” 10 times a day? Make money giving the list to Amazon to improve their customer recommendations (“Recommended for you : The Turner Diaries, Hallow-point bullets”)?
I submit to you that we try to keep them seperated from easy access to weapons.
To not do this seems like a bad idea to me.
When Muslim terrorists pulled off 9/11, we all agreed to erode liberties. I generally agree with that – we expect law enforcement to try to keep us safe from obvious threats. It should not be forgotten that the Oklahoma City bombing was carried out by home-grown nuts who could be easily profiled. (In this day and age, they would have been). And keep them away from fertilizer, as well as guns. Heck, maybe from renting cars and trucks too. That makes more sense to me to do than to take my shoes off every time I go through airport security.
Rick,
I do not object to any of the laws and regulations pertaining to firearms in the state of Virginia, as they stand today, and I do believe that individual states have the right to establish firearms laws within their own borders, as long as these do not amount to a total ban on ownership. If the citizens of that state want to expand the rights, that is up to them. If VA begins passing new restrictions, at some point I would likely move. With regard to the “nuts” I just want the current laws enforced. I know what the law is. Do you?
More or less, sure. From googling, yesterday.
Are you saying some current laws aren’t being enforced, in regards to guns?
Moon, I tried to find that document that showed California cops having access to some medical records through the gun registry….but…couldn’t find it. I’ll keep looking.
Some remarks about the current status of laws in California to address what could have been done.
http://pjmedia.com/blog/california-has-enough-laws/
In California, a number of medical professionals, as well as any police officer, can take a person into custody for a 72 hour mental health evaluation, under Welfare & Institutions Code § 5150. If the hospital evaluating that person decides that he is indeed mentally ill, he can be held for an additional fourteen days for “intensive treatment” under § 5250. It turns out that police had contacted Elliot Rodger because his family had seen his social media posts about “suicide and killing people.” Why didn’t the police take him into custody under § 5150? I have seen, firsthand, California police using § 5150 to take people into custody for suicide threats. Yet they did not do so in this case.
Would it have helped? Ask Elliott Rodger. His manifesto says directly: “I would have been thrown in jail, denied of the chance to exact revenge on my enemies. I can’t imagine a hell darker than that.” He might have received the treatment that he needed to recognize the insanity of what he was planning. But even if he came out of the mental hospital as crazy as he went in, this would still have been a win for public safety. Why?
If a person has been held under either 5150 or 5250, they may not possess a firearm or ammunition for five years. California has required all handgun purchases or transfers to go through the Dealer’s Record of Sale process since Elliott Rodger was in diapers. There is no exemption for gun shows, or ads in the newspaper. California requires all new residents to register their firearms.
So which of California’s laws do you not like?
@Steve Thomas
State laws MUST conform to the Heller and McDonald decision. Scalia’s comment about “tradition limits and restrictions” was NOT specific, so now we are stuck with the attempts to find out what the limit is to the allowable infringement.
Here’s something to think about….
Why is the shooting in California such a big deal…..with days of news coverage…when similar shootings in Compton, Chicago, etc…… barely rate a mention? Apparently drive by shootings matter more when committed from a moving BMW?
Because people are inherently drawn towards mysteries. “Why would he do this?” Or maybe for some the mystery is “how can we prevent this kind of badness from hitting middle-class people”.
I do agree that this shouldn’t be a particularly big story. The part that galls me are stories that reference his 140-page “manifesto”. There’s nothing in it worth investigating for a general audience IMO.
@Rick Bentley
You can’t have it both ways.
“They didn’t search his apartment, they didn’t search out his youtube posts – why would they? No crime was alleged. We have freedom of speech; we have freedom against spurious searches.”
Actually, his parents expressed concern…and in CA, cops are considered valid agents to commit people.
“I don’t see why we can’t or shouldn’t want a more stringent process for acquiring guns, that might involve taking a look at a kid’s youtube posts. Or taking tips from parents or associates that maybe so-and-so shows signs of going off and ideally shouldn’t be sold a gun.”
Do you want freedom from spurious searches or not. By your logic…the searches happen whenever someone wants to buy a gun.
And its not unregulated. CA has some of the strictest gun control laws on the books, giving cops unprecedented powers.
@Steve Thomas
For that matter, much of the crime is conducted with LEGAL guns, by criminals that have not been caught and adjudicated.
@Moon-howler
Its easier to say what I like about Virginia’s laws better.
Open Carry
Concealed carry
No license to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.
Private sales of private property.
No gun bans or gun confiscations.
No idiotic “assault weapon” definitions that have no basis in reality.
Then maybe we need to come up with a generally accepted definition of assault rifle. I think most people have a general idea of what they mean when they say assault weapon.
I don’t like open carry at all. I find it very disturbing.
@CS re comment #43: there is no “allowable infringement.” The language of the amendment does not permit “infringement.” However, the Court has indicated, both in Heller and in subsequent cases that it recently has refused to consider that reasonable regulation of firearms by states and localities is permissible under the Constitution.
Re you last comment (#48): what’s so good about concealed carry? What do you accomplish with concealed carry that you cannot achieve with open carry?
[Raising hand]
Conceal carry doesn’t scare the crap out of people in public places. I leave if I see open carry. Period. I don’;t stick around to play good guy/bad guy.
@Moon-howler
You’re missing the whole point here regarding cause and effect. Many of the people did, in fact, have a “mental” issue. The drugs exacerbated the problem AND created new issues, which, in turn, led to the excessive violent behavior. That’s what I think is pointing out with the cases he cited. The people MAY not have committed the violent crimes but the desire to medicate or over medicate them without the patient or some responsible person fully understanding what COULD happen is the other side of that coin. Just keep Jonnie or Suzie calmed down a d things will get better. NOT! I agree we were way to hasty in releasing folks but am not so sure they have been the issue in the cases we’re talkin about.
And what I am saying is that in many of those cases, cause/effect has not been definitively established. It is merely speculation.
I think there has to be a way to prove that medication was a negative stimulus in that person’s case. As it stands, you or I could read that killer X was on prosac and jump to the conclusion that prosac is what pushed that person over the edge.
I am saying, where is the empirical evidence?
Just because I don’t agree doesn’t mean I am missing the point. I think its a quantum leap.
Moon,
There is an industry accepted term for “assault rifle”, which is a weapon capable of “selective rate-of-fire” ie. capable of firing more than one round, per-trigger-pull. This definition focuses squarely on the actual mechanical operation of the weapon. Firearms such as these have been heavily regulated since the 1934.
The problem with all these state and the (expired) federal assault weapons ban is none of them have anything to do with the actual mechanical function of the firearm. They focus on things like material (plastic stock is scary, wood is not), fixed-vs-collapsing stock (a collapsing stock somehow makes the gun more powerful), color (black scary!) fixed vs. changeable magazines (they’ve obviously never seen someone reload with a stripper clip), magazine capacity (mag swaps take about 2 seconds), pistol grips (?), recoil compensators (??) and bayonet lugs (when is the last time criminals launched a bayonet charge?)
All this is intended to do is placate those ignorant of facts, and plays to their Hollywood-inspired knowledge of guns, and addresses primarily cosmetic features. Only two thing make a weapon deadly: the intent of the person pulling the trigger, and the skill of the person pulling the trigger.
Do you understand that people become more concerned if there is a weapon that can mow down bunches of people almost effortlessly?
A person is going to panic over an “assault rifle” or handgun with a clip than a revolver because of the ability to inflict injury.
A person preparing himself for a rampage isn’t going to order up a revolver to do the deed. It is too limited.
Perhaps you are using gun knowledge to explain away something that killers don’t take in to consideration either. I truly believe they want the most bang for their buck.
In a critical situation, having to change magazines does slow someone down. Sometimes seconds might translate into a few lives. If its yours or your kid’s life, it is important.
“You’re missing the whole point here regarding cause and effect. Many of the people did, in fact, have a “mental” issue. The drugs exacerbated the problem AND created new issues, which, in turn, led to the excessive violent behavior. ”
@George: You sir, have grasped my point EXACTLY. I am sure you will agree that the shift from institutional to community-based mental health care was primarily driven by cost-reduction, and this is also why the medical community is more inclined to medicate, rather than commit. These drugs have numerous side effects, and there is a common thread across these spree-killers: all of them were on some form of brain-chemistry altering drug.
There are millions of gun-owners who own multi-millions of guns, who only use them for lawful purposes. Spree-killings where a firearm is the primary weapon, while sensational, are rare. Yet the media and certain people with an agenda demonize the tool, and (almost) completely ignore the other commonalities: documented history of mental illness, history of homicidal ideation, and the use of mind-altering prescription drugs that have a documented history of producing tragic side-effects.
while I favor committal in most cases for serious psychoses, I think both of you all are making an assumption however, that anyone who rampages and is on medication is having some sort of episode from the medication. I don’t think the empirical evidence is there. Its just a guess.
But is IS there. Correlation has been established. It is causation that must be examined. The reason why it hasn’t been examined (at least in the media) is because those with an anti-gun agenda only want to discuss the gun, as if it was the only commonality that exists between these incidents. Did the presence weapon (gun, car, knife, bomb) cause the violence? No. It was the depraved nature of the violent person. So what made them violent? Was it video games? Medication? psychological trauma? Chemical imbalance? This is my issue. The public discussion says “Gun. Bad. Get rid of them. Everything will be good now.”
Now we get this: a 2001 spree-killer is being released under a “program” for the criminally insane. He killed several victims in Santa Barbara. The DA who prosecuted him says he will “likely kill again”. His weapon? An automobile. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/05/30/01-santa-barbara-killer-walks-free-as-families-relive-carnage-13-years-later/
@Scout
Convenience. To both myself and to others.
@Moon-howler
Magazine changes DO NOT provide opportunities to escape.
Lanza changed magazines frequently, dropping half full magazines.
Loughner was only stopped BECAUSE he had an extended mag that was clumsy to handle and provided a place for a victim to grab.
Revolvers can be reloaded in about 2-5 seconds. I can do it that fast. And I’m way out of practice.
ALL modern weapons can be fired rapidly. THAT is the point to developing and owning them.
Most people DON’T panic over a rifle or semi-auto pistol. They may become watchful, but not panicky. I’ve seen people open carry rifles into the State building.
Why would any AH want to carry a rifle into the state building?
THATS the part I hate.
Most people become very uncomfortable if they see a rifle in a retail store. I would say many people become ill at ease over a pistol displayed. The less professional the person is dressed, the more the discomfort.
I just leave unless the person is clearly law enforcement.
@Moon-howler
Well, I don’t specifically know why he chose to do so, but during Lobby Day, the VCDL lobbies the state legislatures for gun laws they like. Most come armed, as I did. Some people slung a rifle on their backs. Perhaps that is all that they had. They did not move it from that position.
Personally, I think carrying a rifle is a bit much. I’ve opened carried, and I know people who do so often…. I’ve never had anyone have a bad reaction that I know of nor have the others. Most people don’t seem to notice it.
Maybe they are just too polite to say anything. I think it is my responsibility to be aware of my surroundings, as much as possible. How can someone not notice someone carrying open?
I fail to see the point in coming armed to lobby day. In fact…if I were king for a day, I would arrest everyone who did. I realize it is legal. I just don’t think it should be.
I have no problem with people lobbying for gun laws they like. I just think they should leave their toys at home.
Open carry is like gang symbols. Combined with a “don’t Tread on Me” and you have anti-social in spades.
That’s definitely something to ponder. I am not sure I can entirely disagree with you. There are people who definitely have a statement to make, that’s for sure.
@Ed Myers
Gang symbols? Really? Hyperbole much?
@Moon-howler
Hey Moon, would you say that I’m “anti-social? I open carry sometimes and I have the Rattle Snake flag symbol on my truck.
Carrying to Lobby Day makes a point that the right to keep and bear arms is just that….a right. And the Delegates don’t have a problem with it.
As a Virginian, I have a problem with it. As for the rattlesnake symbol, I feel that insignia was high-jacked.
NO, I do not consider you anti social at all. However, I have met people who do some of the things you do who I would say are unpleasant and anti social.
Yes, it is hyperbole but I knew exactly what he was saying. He isn’t that far off the mark with some folks.
@cargo, the hyperbole is for those “in the gang” who think the rest of us are coming for their guns. We have a problem with gun violence and circling the wagons or hoarding guns and ammo are both anti-social responses to a request to help the community with violence. Your objection to the sale of smart guns, objection to any gun regulations, and the objection to insurance makes me think you have no respect for the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for others; everything is subservient to the 2A. The gang isn’t making friends by threatening armed rebellion if they don’t get their way. That threat is implied every time I see the snake displayed.
I think Ed is speaking of a perception left by the “gun nuts.”
I know Cargo and Steve personally and I know that they are both very decent people. They don’t scare me at all.
However, if I remove the face of Steve or Cargo from my mind, I tend to start seeing things Ed’s way a lot more.
A2 people in this country have left a really bad taste in a lot of people’s mouths. I consider myself fairly protective of the A2, or at least I used to. Now I am seen as a “gun control nut.”
“Now I am seen as a “gun control nut.””
Actually, I don’t see you as a “gun control nut”. A gun-control nut wants to dictate what manner and means a person may use to legitimately defend themselves. If a person wants to have an AK-47 in their home, store it in accordance with local laws, and the only place they ever use it is at the range, or in defense of themselves or family, what business is it of others to dictate whether or not they should be able to own one?
Now, with regard to the rash of people open-carrying long-guns, if no laws are broken than what recourse should the general public have? This is an expression of their 1st and 2nd Amendment rights. Would I personally do such a thing? Nope. While I believe they have a right to do this, I question whether or not making people uncomfortable really moves the cause forward. Mostly, they make themselves targets for the media, who then paint them in a negative light.
I make the comparison to the gay rights movement. Stay with me here. If the goal of the gay rights movement is greater acceptance, to demonstrate that they are really just like everyone else. Remove their orientation from the discussion, and they are doctors, lawyers, police officers, soldiers, teachers, they are your neighbors, and are in no way strange or dangerous. Then you see a gay-pride demonstration, where adults are dressed like a cross between a Sigfreid and Roy Show, and a Porn movie… kinda tough to make the “we’re just normal folks trying to enjoy life, like everyone else” argument, and in doing so undo a lot of the progress made by others towards acceptance. Yes, these people have a 1st amendment right to demonstrate, but are they really contributing to progress? No, IMHO.
Totally agree with your analogy about gay rights, Steve. In fact, I thought of that before I got to your paragraph.
One time I went with a friend to a PFlag demonstration. For those who don’t know all the acronyms, PFLAG is Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. It is a very moderate group actually. This friend had a gay brother who had been murdered. The demonstration took place in front of the White House so the media was present.
Everything was going well until the outrageous showed and started strutting their stuff…fairly literally. they had also linked up with a bunch of prostitutes who may or may not have been drag queens. It was horrible. Here is this group of mainstream people trying to stand up for their gay and lesbian friends with the message just articulated by Steve. Your doctors, lawyers, police officers, etc.
The outrageous painted a different picture. I ended up leaving. I didn’t want to be a part of a demonstration that hurt gay rights. I would like to say these were all young people. They weren’t. Young people are known for not having the wisdom to leave the shock jock stunts at home. They need to be told. These clowns I ran into just needed to be bitch slapped.
But I digress. That’s how I feel about the long rifles. I will be honest. I just don’t like open carry. That is one area I part company with my friend Scout. I see him point. I just don’t agree.
Hollywood made gay lifestyle normal. They have also idealized gun ownership. The good guys never miss and kill innocent people…only the bad guys do. Everyday life on the screen is full of horrible dangers and a gun is needed each confrontation with the antagonist. Some people translate the fantasy of an action flick into the realities of everyday life. So sad the delusion.
“Hollywood made gay lifestyle normal. They have also idealized gun ownership.”
Sigh …
Moon,
Check it out, the NRA believes the open-carry long-gun protests are a bad idea too:
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2014/06/nra_calls_texas_open_carry_protests_downright_weird_and_just_not_neighborly.php
“the hyperbole is for those “in the gang” who think the rest of us are coming for their guns.”
Feinstein and Schumer have stated a desire to ban and confiscate guns. CT, CA, and NY have banned and are confiscating guns. Having an EMPTY shell casing in your car during a traffic stop in DC will get you arrested.
“We have a problem with gun violence and circling the wagons or hoarding guns and ammo are both anti-social responses to a request to help the community with violence.”
We all have a problem with gun violence. Your side wants to infringe upon rights to “fix” it. The wagons get circled because the proposed laws affect only law abiding people. Hoarding? What is your definition of hoarding? When the possibility of supplies becoming restricted due to proposed legislation, there will be buying. Neither of these is “anti-social.” What IS anti-social is the blaming of innocent gun owners for the criminal actions of others.
” Your objection to the sale of smart guns,” Because they are UNSAFE and because gun control bigots in NJ want to mandate that ALL guns in NJ match that technology, making THOSE people unsafe.
“objection to any gun regulations,” I object to prior restraint and laws that allow the government to interfere with private property. I object to laws giving the government to much power to regulate a right.
“and the objection to insurance” I notice that you didn’t address the concerns with this insurance idea. Demanding insurance to exercise a right is a poll tax.
“makes me think you have no respect for the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for others;” I can’t help what you think…and based upon your hyperbolic statements and insulting inferences….. I don’t really care what you think of me.
@cargo, your attitude here plus carrying around guns in public just for the effect is anti-social. Enjoy it while you still can.
Without legal guns there would be no illegal ones. Gun owners are the first dot in the chain of criminal activity starting with theft and then trafficking. Without guns there would be no gun violence. There would be violence, no doubt, just less spectacular violence.
When there is a conflict between fundamental rights, one has to give. The right to bear arms outside your home is limited by my right to life. You can maintain your right to bear arms by eliminating homicides by guns (e.g smart guns.) I can eliminate being killed by remaining imprisoned in my house. sCOTUS has already said that the 2A is limited. They would likely rule that my right to leave my house without being killed by a gun trumps your right to carry your gun outside your house. The threat of armed rebellion if you aren’t permitted to sacrifice my life for your right to carry a gun is just childish self-centeredness.