I disagree but games today look so realistic. Dead bodies, exploding heads, you name it all in great visual detail.
I thought that weed is legal in Oregon. Why don't these shooters just get baked and kill a bag of Doritos?
Everybody is screened when they come in? If you are talking about the intake form where you check off boxes then you are being ridiculous. I am not even taking a position one way or the other as far as if a pysch eval. should be required for gun ownership but don't compare an intake form being filled out to a mental health screening. Maybe where you work it is common to do a full mental health screening for every patient but the dozens of doctors I have seen in multiple hospitals over the last few years, the most I ever got from nurses was asked if I was depressed, most times it was a check box on one of the 4 or 5 different forms I was filling out. Sure it may ask if you had thoughts of suicide but that is still not a mental health screening, it's a checked or unchecked box.
Then they aren't doing their jobs because it's a big deal at every job I've ever had. That includes home care you don't check any boxes there are very specific questions you are asked and if you answer yes to any of them, you automatically get a consult. It's policy at most facilities. Then again that's exactly what im talking about. They don't even bother asking you. How effective would that be to determine whether somebody gets a gun or not? I hope you don't think mental health screening is more than that? That's all it is, which exactly my point. It doesn't work. There's no inkblot test or nothing like that. They ask you questions to assess their threat. Now who is gonna say yeah I plan to commit mass murder can I have a gun? Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Had my surgery done at Tampa General, a highly ranked hospital and also a teaching facility. I spent many days there, many visits and I am sure they know what they are doing but I still did not have a psych eval. I hope you don't think a cursory few questions a nurse may ask is equal to what those talking about having psych evals. done for potential gun owners. Once again not taking a side on that issue right now but I think you are selling a few screening questions a little high.
No dude that's what a psych screening is. Mental health is a big part. A lot of times you probably won't get asked anything because you don't appear to be a threat. Don't confuse what I'm saying. You're not gonna go to some psychiatrist and do anything different. Maybe they'll have you fill out some questionnaire which asks the same questions the nurse is supposed to ask you repeatedly. That's all it is. I don't know what you think a psych evaluation entails but that's all it is because legally that's about all they can do. As long as you don't say you want to hurt anyone or yourself there's nothing anyone can do unless you're committing a crime. And even then there is still only so much they can do. Understand, when it comes to the law there is nothing concrete to hang their hat on, unless someone is openly doing something crazy. And it's very understandable why. You can run a test and see wbc is 31 ok that means you definitively have an infection. What labs can you get to definitively say someone is crazy and how do you know? It could be drugs (legal or not), when people aren't getting enough oxygen they do crazy shit. I had a lady onetime I got in 2 point restraints and in report I was told she was a mental Illness patient. Oh she was saying crazy shit too. Come to find out the lady was in chf. So uhhh yeah she was doing crazy shit she was about one night away from being dead also. So you just don't know definitively most the time. That's the problem with mental health. Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
Do you really have a problem with that sentiment? Doers that really mean you're okay with the insane and the bad guys having guns? You got some 'splainin' to do, byz.
people won't be trying this bs all the time if they know there is resistance awaiting. the mere threat will make these much less prevelant. I guarantee it. anyway, since you dont like that idea what's your suggestion? stick with the status quo?
you think it's a coincidence these cowards always end up shooting up gun free zones? yea - arm the good guys and the bad guys usually stop showing up. it is funny how that works, isn't it.
First thing is you have to "harden" the target. Trained and armed Security Personnel would be a great place to start along with Metal detectors at every entrance to all bldgs. In lieu of that, everyone attending the facility has to sign an acknowledgement stating they're aware of the risks of attending the facility and waive their right to sue. Lastly, post "Enter at your own risk" signs in plain view everywhere on campus. If you happen to get shot while there, you can't say you weren't warned and knew the risks going in.
Then what laws and regulations are ok. Everybody can buy a gun at 7-11. Then why don't you abolish driver's licenses while you're at it. Big Bros telling us who can drive. Also no traffic lights. What I'm saying is for 300 million people to live together don't there have to be laws. And all laws take away some of our personal freedoms. As for the argument he could have gotten a gun illegally anyways. Quite true, but imo stricter rules would stop a least some of this mayhem. Without impacting or even affecting 99.9% of the public. Just stricter background checks, with no loopholes and more money and staff to operate it efficiently. And most important, cooperation and coordination between jurisdictions. It would put society on the right side of the problem instead of basically ignoring it in many places. btw this is the United States of America, there is a federal gov, there was a war fought about this but there is a Constitution and a 2nd Amendment. I see no fascist state on the horizon now or in the future. We can talk and say whatever we please. And buy a gun if that's what you need. And travel etc. If the fascists ever do take over I'm on your side. And I'm not one of them.
fuck yeah. what a hero. not only should we could talk about him more than that fuckhead kid who did the shooting but he should get the same honors as those GIs in Europe who took out the shooter. I had a recent conversation with a law enforcement official and an expert in these types of shooting events. He said that the people that go on these asshole shooting sprees aren't expecting resistance and even if they are heavily armed that's a big weakness. They go into a school or church or movie theater because they know they have a bunch of victims - - they aren't looking for or prepared for a fight. He said if you are stuck in a situation where a guy is doing this sometimes even the smallest resistance can fuck them up completely. throw something at them.. charge them... crawl and take out their legs... etc. WAY WAY easier said than done of course which makes this guy who charged the shooter an amazing hero but just an avenue to think about
Whether you are Pro-Second Amendment or if you are an advocate for Gun Control, there are certain things that we should ALL be able to agree upon that would help reduce gun violence in this country: 1) Full background checks for anyone who wants to buy a gun, kept in a non-public database - If you are a healthy, law abiding citizen, you have nothing to worry about buying a gun. 2) You are not allowed to own a fire arm if you have committed a felony or if you have a history of mental illness. Again, if are a healthy, law abiding citizen, you have nothing to worry about buying a gun. 3) If you commit ANY crime while possessing a gun, there is a federally enforced five year felony added on to any other crimes you are found guilty of. ONCE AGAIN - healthy, law abiding citizens, you have nothing to worry about. Am I totalyl off on this?
Actually I heard an interview with a guy who was at the college yesterday. I didn't hear the whole thing but what I think he said was that he was just an average citizen who happened to be there but was carrying a gun. And I think legally. (again I could be wrong I didn't hear the entire interview). So I don't know what the specs were at this college in terms of being a no gun zone. He seemed to indicate that he could legally carry on campus. But I totally agree. In public places like a college campus, hospital, etc. there has to be some kind of a better plan for these kinds of occurrences. I was just at my daughter's college and anyone could walk on campus. I guess metal detectors are probably not feasible. But years ago you had to usually go through a gate with security to get on a campus. The thing is to keep these guys with guns off campus and try to intercept them before they come in contact with a larger body of people. And if they do get through to be able to get to them quickly and take them out without any collateral damage. Which means you only have people who know what they're doing responding. And part of this equation is to try to make it very hard for mentally unstable people to get guns. I know where I work we had a security expert come in and go over basics on what we should do if someone like this came into our place of work. He gave us a basic plan. And we sometimes have Security but it's not armed security.
The problem with all this is that more often than not these nuts do pass a background check to get the gun and would have passed all the criteria you outlined.
Two things: 1) So many of these instances show a history of mental illness, so I disagree with you there. Some of them would have been reduced. 2) The goal of what I posted was NOT by any means to stop all instances from this happening. It was an example of something that could HELP the issue that everyone should be able to agree on.
