Gun Control Laws - Where are we really? Where to go? (3 Viewers)

[[icon]]

And let’s not forget the catalyst for all the gun buying in 2020: it wasn’t the riots by themselves; it was Fox News and conservative talk radio, deliberately spreading fear, repeating the lie that Black Lives Matter was violent, repeating the lie that ANTIFA was a large, well organized group of domestic terrorists, and telling their viewers and listeners “they’re coming for you!” 

Sorry Tim but no... Some of the fastest growing demographics among gun owners since 2020ish is among liberals and minorities.  r/liberalgunowners has exploded to nearly 200,000 members.  Those people aren't watching Fox news or listening to Conservative talk radio. 

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

one was me - I re-joined the NRA and first time Gun Owners of America member

It was made very clear early on in this thread there will be no compromise, nothing will be given from anti-gun side, instead they will take what they want, ban what they want, they don't need partisan support or my support.

I actually considered supporting some changes until I was told that. 

That's interesting, because mostly every post I saw in here (especially after the kids getting murdered) was about compromise and solutions. Now granted I don't have 600 posts in here, so I can't say I have been keeping up with every poster's take. I have noticed that as the days go on the kids getting murdered becomes less of a topic, and takes about very specific minutia about guns and ammo and legislation are on the increase, along with an increased intransigence which I have a feeling will only continue to the point where zero of the posts will be about the murdered kids and all of the posts will be "you don't even know about guns plus there's the 2A so suck it!". I hope that doesn't happen, but we'll see. I'm not optimistic there will be any compromise, at all, from what I'm seeing in here as the days go on.

 

[[icon]]

I'm not being a smartass either, but why is "a balanced attempt at hardening schools" a mandatory condition for you? 

Personally I don't think increased mental health access or "hardening schools" will make any difference at all, but if you do, why not support legislation that at least accomplishes one of them?  

I feel like I've made this pretty clear at least a dozen times in here. No sense in rehashing it again. 

 

[lazyike]

It will have minimal to no impact.  Universal background checks, mental health checks?    Aren’t the vast majority of guns used in urban crime illegal guns? 

Well if it will had no impact just pass it. At the very least it will help the GOP in November ....unless you don't want that?

 

[moleculo]

why is it, in a thread titled "Gun Control Laws - Where are we really? Where to go?" do we insist in tying in mental health and school security?  Obviously everyone on the gun control side wants that too...no one on the control side is saying, "no, don't do that, grab the guns instead".  Of course people want mental health improvements, but they need not be tied together.

Or maybe they should be.  I dunno.  Expanding gun regulations in the same bill as expanding medicare doesn't sound bipartisany at all.

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

I mean, it's possible (and likely IMO) that both the riots and the coverage of them by certain media outlets both contributed to the increase in firearm sales. Which was more impactful? Dunno. Does it matter? Not really.

I do, however, enjoy the tacit admission that black people and hippies looting a CVS scares potential gun owners into taking action more than white people shooting up supermarkets or churches or whatever. 

 

[[icon]]

But the thing is, most people don't see "mental health" as part of the "mass shooting" problem, because nobody has ever really connected the two in terms of specific measures. 

Interesting claim... so you don't think that many/most mass shooters suffer from mental illness / mental crisis... don't give clear indicators (or outright verbalize) their attacks in advance giving a CLEAR window to identify the threat, stop the attack, and get the individual assessed and treated? 

Is that the stance we're taking here? 
 

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

I feel like I've made this pretty clear at least a dozen times in here. No sense in rehashing it again. 

I've read through the last three pages or so of comments and didn't see anything that explains why you wouldn't support standalone mental health legislation. I apologize if I'm missing it somehow.

 

[timschochet]

No, it was definitely the riots.  I don't watch Fox News or listen to talk radio, and I don't have strongly feelings about BLM one way or the other.  But the riots and our collective response to them 100% got my attention.  

I was specifically referring to the increase in gun purchases. Did you respond to the riots by rushing out and buying a ton of firearms because you thought the rioters might come to your house? If not, then you’re not whom I was addressing. 

 

[RCon]

Which parts of HR-8 make a balanced attempt at hardening schools as well as providing avenues to identify potential shooters and improve mental health care? 

I mnay be looking at the wrong bill? 

Not being a smartass.. I may be missing something or looking at the wrong thing. 

This really feels disingenuous.  You're suggesting that the only bill that should ever be proposed in some perfect bill that includes exactly the right amount of gun reform that the GOP would accept (which is zero), exactly the right amount of school security funding, and exactly the right amount of mental health funding?

Democrats have proposed school funding bills.  GOP blocks them.  Democrats have proposed mental health funding bills.  GOP blocks them.  Democrats have proposed incrementally small gun reform bills.  GOP blocks them.

If your answer is that this is only happening because Democrats haven't yet guessed the perfect balance that the GOP likes, that's silly.  Let's see the perfect GOP bill that Democrats have refused?  The reality is that we know what perfect balance the GOP likes here, and it's "nothing".

 

[timschochet]

Sorry Tim but no... Some of the fastest growing demographics among gun owners since 2020ish is among liberals and minorities.  r/liberalgunowners has exploded to nearly 200,000 members.  Those people aren't watching Fox news or listening to Conservative talk radio. 

I’m guessing they are responding to increased crime in general and not specifically to the riots.

 

[[icon]]

I've read through the last three pages or so of comments and didn't see anything that explains why you wouldn't support standalone mental health legislation. I apologize if I'm missing it somehow.

Not all mental health legislation is created equal.... just like not all those suffering from mental illness are at risk of shooting up a school. Your failure to realize this is indicative of the issue that many in here have voiced. 

I'll say it again... any legislation that only addresses gun control, and fails to improve schools defenses against attacks, and fails to capitalize on clear signals from high-risk individuals is a dishonest attempt at solving the problem.  

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

Interesting claim... so you don't think that many/most mass shooters suffer from mental illness / mental crisis... don't give clear indicators (or outright verbalize) their attacks in advance giving a CLEAR window to identify the threat, stop the attack, and get the individual assessed and treated? 

Is that the stance we're taking here? 
 

No. When I said "most people don't see "mental health" as part of the "mass shooting" problem," what I meant is that most people see it as a much larger issue that falls under the "health care" umbrella rather than an issue that falls under the "gun control" umbrella. That's why efforts to expand health care usually aren't paired with gun control legislation.

That said, I also don't really think expanding mental health access will help stop mass shootings. If you['d like to explain how they would, I'm all ears. Are we gonna use the funding to have the government monitor teen social media activity? Are we gonna have cash rewards for narcing on your friends or kids? What exactly is the plan here? I know it's not to actually fund a broad expansion of mental health services, because the GOP could not make it clearer that they have no interest in that.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I mean, it's possible (and likely IMO) that both the riots and the coverage of them by certain media outlets both contributed to the increase in firearm sales. Which was more impactful? Dunno. Does it matter? Not really.

Maybe.  And look, maybe I'm just getting old and having "old man yells at clouds" moments more often than I did when I was younger.  And for the record, I don't actually own a gun, so it's not as if I ran out and and started up my own personal arsenal just because somebody torched a Target in some town I don't live in.  All fair. 

That said, you and I both lived through the Rodney King riots in the early 90s and the BLM riots.  The LA riots had a lot of the same general stupidity from people like Maxine Waters -- I didn't get too bent out shape about that then, and I wasn't too bent out of shape about it in 2020 either.  What seemed different to me was the way the media, public health officials, and elites in general cheered them on.  That episode greatly changed my views on a number of issues.  

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Not all mental health legislation is created equal.... just like not all those suffering from mental illness are at risk of shooting up a school. Your failure to realize this is indicative of the issue that many in here have voiced. 

I'll say it again... any legislation that only addresses gun control, and fails to improve schools defenses against attacks, and fails to capitalize on clear signals from high-risk individuals is a dishonest attempt at solving the problem.  

So when conservatives talk about the mental health component to this, are they just talking about identifying and taking action against scary individuals?  I would not characterize that as “mental health” services.

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

Not all mental health legislation is created equal.... just like not all those suffering from mental illness are at risk of shooting up a school. Your failure to realize this is indicative of the issue that many in here have voiced. 

I'll say it again... any legislation that only addresses gun control, and fails to improve schools defenses against attacks, and fails to capitalize on clear signals from high-risk individuals is a dishonest attempt at solving the problem.  

Sorry, but I really don't give a #### about whether you subjectively think something is a "dishonest attempt at solving the problem."  I care about saving lives. Is that not your priority? Do you not think legislation that only addresses gun control and nothing else would save lives?  Because there's pretty powerful evidence that it would.

 

[[icon]]

This really feels disingenuous.  You're suggesting that the only bill that should ever be proposed in some perfect bill that includes exactly the right amount of gun reform that the GOP would accept (which is zero), exactly the right amount of school security funding, and exactly the right amount of mental health funding?

Democrats have proposed school funding bills.  GOP blocks them.  Democrats have proposed mental health funding bills.  GOP blocks them.  Democrats have proposed incrementally small gun reform bills.  GOP blocks them.

If your answer is that this is only happening because Democrats haven't yet guessed the perfect balance that the GOP likes, that's silly.  Let's see the perfect GOP bill that Democrats have refused?  The reality is that we know what perfect balance the GOP likes here, and it's "nothing".

It's not what the GOP likes (I'm not a republican)... it's what is common sense. If you have 3 roads leading to a destination that you want to keep people away from. IS blocking one road a honest and thorough attempt to solve the problem?

No. No it's not. 

School funding bills =/= bills directly addressing weak points that enable school shooters. 

Mental Health bills =/= bills directly funding means to identify, stop, and treat shooters before the strike. 

There may be realistic (ie not pork laden) bills out there that attempted to do these things., in which case: good on them and we need to bring them back up.

However if anyone doesn't recognize that pretty the ONLY tool (out of many available to us) that the left reaches for after a shooting is restricting gun ownership at the expense of the rights of law abiding cities. Period. 

 

[RCon]

However if anyone doesn't recognize that pretty the ONLY tool (out of many available to us) that the left reaches for after a shooting is restricting gun ownership at the expense of the rights of law abiding cities. Period. 

You keep saying this and we keep pointing out that when Democrats do propose school funding and mental health funding bills, the GOP blocks those too.  The GOP just refuses to acknowledge that they've done so, in order to then claim the Democrats are only focusing on the gun reform part of the equation.

 

[[icon]]

No. When I said "most people don't see "mental health" as part of the "mass shooting" problem," what I meant is that most people see it as a much larger issue that falls under the "health care" umbrella rather than an issue that falls under the "gun control" umbrella. That's why efforts to expand health care usually aren't paired with gun control legislation.

That said, I also don't really think expanding mental health access will help stop mass shootings. If you['d like to explain how they would, I'm all ears. Are we gonna use the funding to have the government monitor teen social media activity? Are we gonna have cash rewards for narcing on your friends or kids? What exactly is the plan here? I know it's not to actually fund a broad expansion of mental health services, because the GOP could not make it clearer that they have no interest in that.

You mean like the guy in Massachusetts that was just arrested for threatening to shoot up a school?  You mean over half of spree shooters don't leak the attack in advance? You mean many spree shooters aren't identified as threats, then released only to carry out the attack?

What has EITHER side done to address this low hanging fruit? 

This has all been covered in here many times so you're either being disingenuous or you're not really keeping up with the thread and the issue at hand. 

 

[[icon]]

You keep saying this and we keep pointing out that when Democrats do propose school funding and mental health funding bills, the GOP blocks those too.  The GOP just refuses to acknowledge that they've done so, in order to then claim the Democrats are only focusing on the gun reform part of the equation.

Yep. Both sides suck at this. Terribly. 

One is actively impeding any action.

One is using tragedy to further an agenda through imbalanced or unrealistic legislation. 

Meanwhile Americans suffer. 

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

You mean like the guy in Massachusetts that was just arrested for threatening to shoot up a school?  You mean over half of spree shooters don't leak the attack in advance? You mean many spree shooters aren't identified as threats, then released only to carry out the attack?

What has EITHER side done to address this low hanging fruit? 

This has all been covered in here many times so you're either being disingenuous or you're not really keeping up with the thread and the issue at hand. 

Huh? 

I mean sure, I haven't tracked all 95 pages of this thread, and I'm sure I've missed some things. But what you wrote here wasn't responsive to my post at all. 

Here's what I asked said/asked:  "I don't really think expanding mental health access will help stop mass shootings. If you'd like to explain how they would, I'm all ears. Are we gonna use the funding to have the government monitor teen social media activity? Are we gonna have cash rewards for narcing on your friends or kids? What exactly is the plan here? I know it's not to actually fund a broad expansion of mental health services, because the GOP could not make it clearer that they have no interest in that."

 

[[icon]]

Sorry, but I really don't give a #### about whether you subjectively think something is a "dishonest attempt at solving the problem."  I care about saving lives. Is that not your priority? Do you not think legislation that only addresses gun control and nothing else would save lives?  Because there's pretty powerful evidence that it would.

I do care about saving lives as well as our constitutionally protected rights, which is why I'm pushing to block all three roads to disaster (not just one), and to do it while minimizing infringement on law abiding citizens. 

And I don't care if that upsets you. It's the reality. If you want to get something done, you're going to need to be more realistic or nothing is happening. 

 

[dkp993]

a lot of factors play into that - having a huge population helps lower statistics like that

the fact remains, mag ban's didn't reduce murders/mass murders nor did many other gun laws passed

Convenient, now having more people is the reason.  You’re unreal man, any excuse to not  acknowledge the laws themselves might actually be working.  

 

[[icon]]

Huh? 

I mean sure, I haven't tracked all 95 pages of this thread, and I'm sure I've missed some things. But what you wrote here wasn't responsive to my post at all. 

Here's what I asked said/asked:  "I don't really think expanding mental health access will help stop mass shootings. If you'd like to explain how they would, I'm all ears. Are we gonna use the funding to have the government monitor teen social media activity? Are we gonna have cash rewards for narcing on your friends or kids? What exactly is the plan here? I know it's not to actually fund a broad expansion of mental health services, because the GOP could not make it clearer that they have no interest in that."

Sigh. I'm speaking to a wall here. 

Moving on. 

 

[moleculo]

It's not what the GOP likes (I'm not a republican)... it's what is common sense. If you have 3 roads leading to a destination that you want to keep people away from. IS blocking one road a honest and thorough attempt to solve the problem?

No. No it's not. 

School funding bills =/= bills directly addressing weak points that enable school shooters. 

Mental Health bills =/= bills directly funding means to identify, stop, and treat shooters before the strike. 

There may be realistic (ie not pork laden) bills out there that attempted to do these things., in which case: good on them and we need to bring them back up.

However if anyone doesn't recognize that pretty the ONLY tool (out of many available to us) that the left reaches for after a shooting is restricting gun ownership at the expense of the rights of law abiding cities. Period. 

you know what is also not an effective way to prevent access form the destination?  refusing to do anything.  

and lets be honest with your analogy - the gun control bill is a 4 lane highway - freshly paved, no traffic.  School funding and mental health are 4x4 only trails. 

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

I do care about saving lives as well as our constitutionally protected rights, which is why I'm pushing to block all three roads to disaster (not just one), and to do it while minimizing infringement on law abiding citizens. 

And I don't care if that upsets you. It's the reality. If you want to get something done, you're going to need to be more realistic or nothing is happening. 

I am being realistic. I'm pointing to the fact that standalone gun control laws that have worked in the past, and work in other countries. And I'm asking why you refuse to support them unless they are paired with other laws that nobody other than Republican and NRA activists believe will really help the problem. If that's not an accurate statement of your position I apologize and welcome your correction.

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

Sigh. I'm speaking to a wall here. 

Moving on. 

I know the feeling.

If anyone else feels like explaining specifically what sort of mental health initiatives they'd like to see passed and how exactly they would help stop mass shootings, I'm all ears.

 

[[icon]]

you know what is also not an effective way to prevent access form the destination?  refusing to do anything.  

and lets be honest with your analogy - the gun control bill is a 4 lane highway - freshly paved, no traffic.  School funding and mental health are 4x4 only trails. 

Disagree 100%. We literally have over half of spree shooters LEAKING THE ATTACK IN ADVANCE and you guys are calling that a "4x4 only trail" and throwing your hands up saying it's impossible to stop?  A broadcast threat was captured and the potential shooter was arrested YESTERDAY   

Are you guys trolling... because it's hard to believe you're actually serious. 

And who's advocating doing nothing? Weird straw man you guys keep trying to play against me. Do I need to repost my 10 point plan... half of which is increased gun control?  

Good lord... this thread seriously makes we wonder about some of you. 

 

[(HULK)]

Maybe.  And look, maybe I'm just getting old and having "old man yells at clouds" moments more often than I did when I was younger.  And for the record, I don't actually own a gun, so it's not as if I ran out and and started up my own personal arsenal just because somebody torched a Target in some town I don't live in.  All fair. 

That said, you and I both lived through the Rodney King riots in the early 90s and the BLM riots.  The LA riots had a lot of the same general stupidity from people like Maxine Waters -- I didn't get too bent out shape about that then, and I wasn't too bent out of shape about it in 2020 either.  What seemed different to me was the way the media, public health officials, and elites in general cheered them on.  That episode greatly changed my views on a number of issues.  

I'm trending into yell at clouds territory more and more too.

I don't know what media you were consuming, but I didn't see any that cheered on violence and rioting.

I'm more worried about riots whenever U of Maryland wins a championship again. Those have been incredibly destructive. That's a joke FYI, although UMd does riot every time they win anything.

DC had some pretty awful race riots that burned parts of the city to the ground, mostly before my time, but I'd guess the flavor of those riots was pretty similar to 2020's riots. For DC at least, 2020 was less destructive.

The 2020 riots bothered me on so many levels... not the peaceful protester folks, but the people out there trying to burn everything, the thieves just there to loot, the government's response was off key too, shooting and gassing people who weren't actually doing anything violent seemed WAY too common also.

 

[timschochet]

  What seemed different to me was the way the media, public health officials, and elites in general cheered them on.  That episode greatly changed my views on a number of issues.  

There were plenty of people who cheered on the peaceful protests including myself. I don’t know of any media, public health officials, or “elites in general” (whatever that means) that cheered on rioting. You’ll have to provide concrete examples because I don’t think it happened. 

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

you know what is also not an effective way to prevent access form the destination?  refusing to do anything.  

and lets be honest with your analogy - the gun control bill is a 4 lane highway - freshly paved, no traffic.  School funding and mental health are 4x4 only trails. 

Also  the school funding road doesn't lead you to your destination, and the mental health road isn't even really a road, it's an idea of a road that nobody can explain how they would construct.

That other road is right there in front of us, though. We even have a map and proof that it takes us in the right direction. 

 

[(HULK)]

Disagree 100%. We literally have over half of spree shooters LEAKING THE ATTACK IN ADVANCE and you guys are calling that a "4x4 only trail" and throwing your hands up saying it's impossible to stop?  A broadcast threat was captured and the potential shooter was arrested YESTERDAY   

Are you guys trolling... because it's hard to believe you're actually serious. 

And who's advocating doing nothing? Weird straw man you guys keep trying to play against me. Do I need to repost my 10 point plan... half of which is increased gun control?  

As I said a couple of days ago, I don't know if your plan is strong enough, but I certainly feel that it would be better than the present state and we should try it out. If it wasn't enough, then revisit in a few years. It seemed like a decent compramise, and really, we'd all need to see what a couple of years looked like with these new laws/regulations/rules before deciding if it was enough or not. Just because I think it's not enough, doesn't make me correct. 

 

[moleculo]

Disagree 100%. We literally have over half of spree shooters LEAKING THE ATTACK IN ADVANCE and you guys are calling that a "4x4 only trail" and throwing your hands up saying it's impossible to stop?  A broadcast threat was captured and the potential shooter was arrested YESTERDAY   

Are you guys trolling... because it's hard to believe you're actually serious. 

And who's advocating doing nothing? Weird straw man you guys keep trying to play against me. Do I need to repost my 10 point plan... half of which is increased gun control?  

what happens when they leak the attack in advance?  I'm curious how that works.  I mean, is the government monitoring our social media, or are we relying on friends to snitch?    And once Law Enforcement intervenes, is that person prevented from owning guns forever, or can he be rehabilitated?

I know you aren't advocating doing nothing, but it seems you are only ok with regulations as a package deal...but the package deal can't have a bunch of things you also don't like.  the window for reform becomes so tiny, and anything else becomes a non-starter.  But that's you - you are one voter.  someone else will have a completely different window, and it becomes impossible for common ground.  So things have to be done piece-meal, but that can't happen because you insist on comprehensive reform.  Net result is that nothing happens.  I've seen this play before.

 

[timschochet]

And who's advocating doing nothing? Weird straw man you guys keep trying to play against me. Do I need to repost my 10 point plan... half of which is increased gun control?  

You’ve been very specific about what you would like to see happen (universal background checks, raising the age limit) and I thank you for it. 

That being said, I will pose the same question to you that I have to several others: if these things fail to occur, as I frankly expect, due to nearly 100% Republican opposition, will it cause you to vote against Republicans in the next election? Because if your answer is that, despite this issue you’re still planning to vote Republican, then your own willingness to compromise on the issue of gun restrictions is essentially meaningless. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

Interesting claim... so you don't think that many/most mass shooters suffer from mental illness / mental crisis... don't give clear indicators (or outright verbalize) their attacks in advance giving a CLEAR window to identify the threat, stop the attack, and get the individual assessed and treated? 

Is that the stance we're taking here? 
 

No, because most mass shootings aren't the school type shooters you are talking about here.   Yes, school shooter display those characteristics and very often leak their plans.  That doesn't apply to drug/gang/inner city type shooters, which is the majority of cases, right? 

 

[RCon]

Yep. Both sides suck at this. Terribly. 

One is actively impeding any action.

One is using tragedy to further an agenda through imbalanced or unrealistic legislation. 

Meanwhile Americans suffer. 

We keep showing you that the bolded isn't actually happening.  This side repeatedly proposes legislation that the other side specifically says they will support, and repeatedly gets that legislation blocked.

 

[Herb]

Some of the fastest growing demographics among gun owners since 2020ish is among liberals and minorities.  r/liberalgunowners has exploded to nearly 200,000 members.

If I didn't already own a gun, 1/6 may very well have inspired me to buy one. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

what happens when they leak the attack in advance?  I'm curious how that works.  I mean, is the government monitoring our social media, or are we relying on friends to snitch?    And once Law Enforcement intervenes, is that person prevented from owning guns forever, or can he be rehabilitated?

I know you aren't advocating doing nothing, but it seems you are only ok with regulations as a package deal...but the package deal can't have a bunch of things you also don't like.  the window for reform becomes so tiny, and anything else becomes a non-starter.  But that's you - you are one voter.  someone else will have a completely different window, and it becomes impossible for common ground.  So things have to be done piece-meal, but that can't happen because you insist on comprehensive reform.  Net result is that nothing happens.  I've seen this play before.

If you dig further (or read the book I suggested) they show stats that it's all over the place where and to who they leak to.  Family members, online, friends, teachers, etc.   

Best bet is to have more training and PSAs what to look and listen for and who to tell. 

 

[RCon]

Disagree 100%. We literally have over half of spree shooters LEAKING THE ATTACK IN ADVANCE and you guys are calling that a "4x4 only trail" and throwing your hands up saying it's impossible to stop?  A broadcast threat was captured and the potential shooter was arrested YESTERDAY   

Are you guys trolling... because it's hard to believe you're actually serious. 

And who's advocating doing nothing? Weird straw man you guys keep trying to play against me. Do I need to repost my 10 point plan... half of which is increased gun control?  

Good lord... this thread seriously makes we wonder about some of you. 

What specific proposal do you want to see that you believe would address the bolded?

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I know the feeling.

If anyone else feels like explaining specifically what sort of mental health initiatives they'd like to see passed and how exactly they would help stop mass shootings, I'm all ears.

I believe @[icon]would like 

 bills directly funding means to identify, stop, and treat shooters before the strike. 

 

[[icon]]

If I didn't already own a gun, 1/6 may very well have inspired me to buy one. 

Wouldn't blame ya! 

 

[moleculo]

I know the feeling.

If anyone else feels like explaining specifically what sort of mental health initiatives they'd like to see passed and how exactly they would help stop mass shootings, I'm all ears.

I believe @[icon]would like 

 bills directly funding means to identify, stop, and treat shooters before the strike. 

that's not really mental health though.  Not to speak for [icon] but detection and intervention is a separate animal than therapy and treatment.  AFAIK, it's not something that would be part of Medicare, for example.

I like the PSA program that @KarmaPolice seems to be pushing above.  "If you see something, say something" kind of campaign, especially within schools.  Seems like it would require very little funding.  What we probably need are laws expressly allowing intervention...maybe that already exists, I don't know. 

It would be something like, if someone in a household makes a threat, no guns are allowed in the house, the individual would be required to go to therapy (at a minimum), and they are black-listed from purchase until cleared by a qualified psychologist.

 

[[icon]]

We keep showing you that the bolded isn't actually happening.  This side repeatedly proposes legislation that the other side specifically says they will support, and repeatedly gets that legislation blocked.

You posted one Bill that suppposedly did this... yet it had zero mention of the other two facets.

Literally NOBODY has posted a link to a bill that specifically addresses stopping and treating shooters before the strike... as well as hardening schools against attacks. HR 8 aint it. So if anyone has a link... no would be a good time to share it. 

 

[belljr]

Forgive me for my ignorance here but

The Texas shooter is legally not allowed to buy a hand gun in a public sale (Federal law is 21)  but can buy AR-15 because its classified as a rifle?

How does that make sense

 

[Toby2ElectricBugaloo]

that's not really mental health though.  Not to speak for [icon] but detection and intervention is a separate animal than therapy and treatment.  AFAIK, it's not something that would be part of Medicare, for example.

I like the PSA program that @KarmaPolice seems to be pushing above.  "If you see something, say something" kind of campaign, especially within schools.  Seems like it would require very little funding.  What we probably need are laws expressly allowing intervention...maybe that already exists, I don't know. 

It would be something like, if someone in a household makes a threat, no guns are allowed in the house, the individual would be required to go to therapy (at a minimum), and they are black-listed from purchase until cleared by a qualified psychologist.

Exactly. 

Also I'm not sure how we would identify, stop and treat shooters before they strike, and that's the key to the whole operation. Saying you want to do that is not a solution. Explaining how we would do that is the solution.

The folks who want to revive the assault weapons ban or push pun buybacks or firm up background checks have specific plans, in some cases even draft legislation, that they can clearly and easily connect to the goal of fewer mass shootings. The folks who want to address the mental health component on the left by expanding access to it can and have done the same. Where's the specifics from the right on the surveillance state expansion idea?

 

[RCon]

You posted one Bill that suppposedly did this... yet it had zero mention of the other two facets.

Literally NOBODY has posted a link to a bill that specifically addresses stopping and treating shooters before the strike... as well as hardening schools against attacks. HR 8 aint it. So if anyone has a link... no would be a good time to share it. 

I'm trying to understand what you mean by the bolded.  I assume you don't mean via background check prior to the shooter obtaining a gun.  How are you proposing this happen?  Are you asking for government monitoring of social media?  Something else?

 

[[icon]]

What specific proposal do you want to see that you believe would address the bolded?

You guys really need this spelled out for you or are you playing coy? 

1)  "see something say something" messaging campaign 

2) Establishing hotlines to report clear threats, that are required to be followed up on immediately. Establish penalties for abuse of the system.

3) Force social media channels to establish reporting tools that funnel into 2 for expedited analysis and response. Also would require penalties for abuse of the system. 

4) Fund local and federal threat response teams to weed through data and address threats. 

5) Fund mental health teams to meet with those issuing threats to assess their ongoing risk level, and put them on a path to treatment (or incarceration) depending on professional assessment. 

6) Establish a panel of law enforcement experts as well as mental health experts (with a specialty in this issue) to identify further solutions that identify threats while minimizing intrusion into privacy of law abiding citizens. 

This is off the top of my head.... the team of experts likely have MANY more ideas that we're not tapping. 

Now your turn..... go. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

that's not really mental health though.  Not to speak for [icon] but detection and intervention is a separate animal than therapy and treatment.  AFAIK, it's not something that would be part of Medicare, for example.

I like the PSA program that @KarmaPolice seems to be pushing above.  "If you see something, say something" kind of campaign, especially within schools.  Seems like it would require very little funding.  What we probably need are laws expressly allowing intervention...maybe that already exists, I don't know. 

It would be something like, if someone in a household makes a threat, no guns are allowed in the house, the individual would be required to go to therapy (at a minimum), and they are black-listed from purchase until cleared by a qualified psychologist.

They also were very adamant about having "crisis teams" in place at schools and work.  These would be people trained what to do and be able to problem solve better what to act on.  They also suggested and anonymous tip system- paper, email, etc.   

The point was you can't have a system where every threat or change in behavior = psychological evaluation, school suspensions and no guns.  There has to be some guidelines and system in place.  

It's something that can be done on the cheap, using people already in place, and would have a far greater overall benefit (also helps with the suicide numbers) than armed guards and other suggestions. No Brainer, imo. 

 

[[icon]]

Forgive me for my ignorance here but

The Texas shooter is legally not allowed to buy a hand gun in a public sale (Federal law is 21)  but can buy AR-15 because its classified as a rifle?

How does that make sense

It doesn't. 

 

[[icon]]

No, because most mass shootings aren't the school type shooters you are talking about here.   Yes, school shooter display those characteristics and very often leak their plans.  That doesn't apply to drug/gang/inner city type shooters, which is the majority of cases, right? 

Two totally different issues but that doesn't mean we can't develop solutions to address each. Yes the conversation in here has been driven largely toward school/spree shooters for obvious reasons. 

Identifying suicidal individuals and intervening is another channel that needs to be addressed. 

Regarding drug/gang/inner city shooters is another animal but there are ways to address those as well. 

These solutions don't have to, and shouldn't be expected to, completely solve the problems. The goal here is to minimize intrusion/impact on law-abiding citizens while also reducing the numbers of shootings.