quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

They cannot ask them if they own weapons. Who would they warn? Unless the guy comes right out and says, I am killing me some motherfuckers, it would be an invasion of privacy to say to law enforcement....well, I dunno, he might be nuts, in my professional opinion.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you had proclaimed that only people who own weapons can be dangerous. Please forgive me. Meanwhile, back on Earth, a therapist can damn well know that someone is dangerous without them having to say they're going to kill somebody.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

No, technically, it's called reaggregating, unless we're speaking of tungsten carbide.

Any chance of you guys taking Piers Morgan back?

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

No, technically, it's called reaggregating, unless we're speaking of tungsten carbide.

Any chance of you guys taking Piers Morgan back?

K.

I continue to watch him.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

Aaron Alexis tried to buy assault rifle but was unable to

Washington Navy Yard gunman Aaron Alexis tried to buy an AR-15 assault rifle at a Virginia gun store last week after test firing one, but the store wouldn't sell it to him right away, CBS News has learned.

The reason for the refusal isn't clear.

Alexis then purchased a shotgun he used in his rampage, sources tell CBS News.

The owners of two gun stores in Virginia told CBS News Alexis would have been able to buy an AR-15, he just wouldn't have gotten it right away.

Anyone can buy the assault-style weapon in Virginia, but the dealer would have to observe the laws of the buyer's home state.

It appears unlikely Alexis was a Virginia resident. His last reported full-time residency was in Texas.

If the buyer is an out-of-state resident, the dealer would then ship the weapon to the buyer's home state where a background check would be conducted. At the time of purchase in Virginia, however, the buyer would have to show two proofs of residence with matching addresses and then a proof of citizenship. This is all according to federal law when it comes to sales of the AR-15, which are administered by the ATF.


Source

Kinda throw3s a monkey wrench in the "Everyone can buy an assault rifle in the US" argument out the window dont it.

No as your it stated "The owners of two gun stores in Virginia told CBS News Alexis would have been able to buy an AR-15, he just wouldn't have gotten it right away." there appear only a delay was involved. Alexis was not a resident of Virginia so there was a few items that needed to be cleared. If Alexis attempt to purchase an AR-15 in Texas, he legal residence, he would have walked out the store with it.

(in reply to jlf1961)

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf
A yes or no flag in a national database for the purpose of determining background checks gives no details. Your credit report invades your privacy more than it would. If it is kept at yes or no, and proceedings allowed to be brought before a judge in the case of exceptions, then I do not see where it would be much of an issue. The ones that would oppose are the ones that would oppose any law no matter how common sense because their cry is "if we allow this then eventually they will take all our guns", which I hear a lot around the Missouri area I am in living in now.
If the yes or no flag in a national database were in place, and the background check tied into it, would it have averted this shooting or others?
I am with Tweak on this and we need to find productive ways to make it safer. Ways that are not extreme, nor would cause a challenge with substance to the 2nd amendment.

A yes or no flag for what? Mental health issues? Is everyone suffering from depression a high enough risk that they are barred from their right to own a firearm? Same for an Exhibitionist? A Voyeur?

These questions are best left to a panel of healthcare professionals to determine.

quote:

There are people who are suffering from mental health issues that should be prevented from gaining access to a firearm. That isn't in question. But, what mental health issues will flag that? How will one get the flag removed after successful treatment of the problem?

Easy to update database that medical professionals would have access to, and depending on guidelines they would update them at the appropriate times.

quote:


If a person tries to get a gun after they get flagged (which is the case here), that purchase could be prevented. However, if the guy was set on this, then all he had to do was knife the guard, and then he'd have the guard's gun(s) like he did anyway. The spree continues.

Knifing the guard would be a lot more difficult. These are not things to completely prevent, but make it more difficult and hopefully safer.

quote:


The Sandy Hook nutjob stole his Mom's guns. No flags would have prevented that. Even if you flag her because of him, his mental health issues were after the guns were already owned.

You are correct it would not work there, but would it have helped in the Navy Yard shooting is the question.

quote:


My concern is that any blanket "mental health" flag would remove the rights of law abiding citizens. I do not support a blanket solution for that. I do support some sort of solution that takes mental health into account, though. The problem is, what counts?

Medical professionals in the mental health area would be needed to work that out. If the flags only hit what that panel, or whatever determines then it would be law abiding citizens that needed their rights temporarily suspended. What is determined to be flagged or not should be in the law and not something that can be changed unless a new law is passed. You could also put an expiration on the law so that it can be checked to see if it has actually helped.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Well the people that only see the gun as the common denominator in these mass shootings are correct. Guns are psychic creatures who take over the minds of their owners.
My 12 gauge keeps telling me to hunt the asshole who created "here comes Honey boo-boo" and fill his ass with rock salt and ghost pepper flakes.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
They cannot ask them if they own weapons. Who would they warn? Unless the guy comes right out and says, I am killing me some motherfuckers, it would be an invasion of privacy to say to law enforcement....well, I dunno, he might be nuts, in my professional opinion.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize you had proclaimed that only people who own weapons can be dangerous. Please forgive me. Meanwhile, back on Earth, a therapist can damn well know that someone is dangerous without them having to say they're going to kill somebody.
K.

You keep showing your lack of knowledge of various disciplines. A person can only be dangerous if they 1. Are a threat to themselves. 2. A threat to others. (There must also be a means for that person to carry the threat out) 3. Unable to care for themselves. That is what a therapist must be able to determine. As to the topic at hand, simply a statement of hearing voices is not considered a threat by any means, but yours of course.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman

They (especially the Navy) are also very well-trained to operate fire-fighting equipment, and as such, they keep it located in convenient places around their work space. Why not their personal weapons as well? They're trained to fight, they need something to fight with. I'm no advocating each and every servicemember hump their PW everywhere they go (that's reserved for training and combat), just to make it easier for them to arm themselves in an emergency.

And what would have kept the shooter from further arming himself in that scenario? He had already shot armed security personnel and taken their weapons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman

They (especially the Navy) are also very well-trained to operate fire-fighting equipment, and as such, they keep it located in convenient places around their work space. Why not their personal weapons as well? They're trained to fight, they need something to fight with. I'm no advocating each and every servicemember hump their PW everywhere they go (that's reserved for training and combat), just to make it easier for them to arm themselves in an emergency.

And what would have kept the shooter from further arming himself in that scenario? He had already shot armed security personnel and taken their weapons.

Numbers. There would be no way he could overwhelm several sections worth of armed people. One or two security guys I can see (I didn't hear if they were SPs or not-probably just Fed contractors themselves). And you can only shoot one at a time, so having more just means you got more crap to deal with. And while he's stopping to strip the bodies, that gives the personnel just that much more time to load out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

As to the topic at hand, simply a statement of hearing voices is not considered a threat by any means, but yours of course.

When they are used to justify paranoid delusions it should.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

My disagreement to igor's question of whether it should be law that authorities are notified if someone has mental health issues of any kind. I'm not in favor of allowing every person with a mental disorder to have a firearm. I'm just as resolute in not being in favor or barring every person with a mental disorder from having a firearm. Therein lies the problem. Where do we draw the line and how do we draw it so that it's effective, but not preventing people who are not a danger from having a gun?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman

They (especially the Navy) are also very well-trained to operate fire-fighting equipment, and as such, they keep it located in convenient places around their work space. Why not their personal weapons as well? They're trained to fight, they need something to fight with. I'm no advocating each and every servicemember hump their PW everywhere they go (that's reserved for training and combat), just to make it easier for them to arm themselves in an emergency.

And what would have kept the shooter from further arming himself in that scenario? He had already shot armed security personnel and taken their weapons.

Numbers. There would be no way he could overwhelm several sections worth of armed people. One or two security guys I can see (I didn't hear if they were SPs or not-probably just Fed contractors themselves). And you can only shoot one at a time, so having more just means you got more crap to deal with. And while he's stopping to strip the bodies, that gives the personnel just that much more time to load out.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nosathro

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman

They (especially the Navy) are also very well-trained to operate fire-fighting equipment, and as such, they keep it located in convenient places around their work space. Why not their personal weapons as well? They're trained to fight, they need something to fight with. I'm no advocating each and every servicemember hump their PW everywhere they go (that's reserved for training and combat), just to make it easier for them to arm themselves in an emergency.

And what would have kept the shooter from further arming himself in that scenario? He had already shot armed security personnel and taken their weapons.

Numbers. There would be no way he could overwhelm several sections worth of armed people. One or two security guys I can see (I didn't hear if they were SPs or not-probably just Fed contractors themselves). And you can only shoot one at a time, so having more just means you got more crap to deal with. And while he's stopping to strip the bodies, that gives the personnel just that much more time to load out.

How do you know he is stripping bodies?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman

They (especially the Navy) are also very well-trained to operate fire-fighting equipment, and as such, they keep it located in convenient places around their work space. Why not their personal weapons as well? They're trained to fight, they need something to fight with. I'm no advocating each and every servicemember hump their PW everywhere they go (that's reserved for training and combat), just to make it easier for them to arm themselves in an emergency.

And what would have kept the shooter from further arming himself in that scenario? He had already shot armed security personnel and taken their weapons.

Numbers. There would be no way he could overwhelm several sections worth of armed people. One or two security guys I can see (I didn't hear if they were SPs or not-probably just Fed contractors themselves). And you can only shoot one at a time, so having more just means you got more crap to deal with. And while he's stopping to strip the bodies, that gives the personnel just that much more time to load out.

You misunderstand. What would have prevented him from shooting someone, taking their keys, opening the gun safe and standing in front of it shooting people as they came to arm themselves?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman

They (especially the Navy) are also very well-trained to operate fire-fighting equipment, and as such, they keep it located in convenient places around their work space. Why not their personal weapons as well? They're trained to fight, they need something to fight with. I'm no advocating each and every servicemember hump their PW everywhere they go (that's reserved for training and combat), just to make it easier for them to arm themselves in an emergency.

And what would have kept the shooter from further arming himself in that scenario? He had already shot armed security personnel and taken their weapons.

Numbers. There would be no way he could overwhelm several sections worth of armed people. One or two security guys I can see (I didn't hear if they were SPs or not-probably just Fed contractors themselves). And you can only shoot one at a time, so having more just means you got more crap to deal with. And while he's stopping to strip the bodies, that gives the personnel just that much more time to load out.

You misunderstand. What would have prevented him from shooting someone, taking their keys, opening the gun safe and standing in front of it shooting people as they came to arm themselves?

Again, numbers. One gun safe amongst many. Whole idea of decentralization-you don't keep all your eggs in one basket.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

As to the topic at hand, simply a statement of hearing voices is not considered a threat by any means, but yours of course.

When they are used to justify paranoid delusions it should.

You got it spot on earlier..... having depression alone shouldnt be a reason, hearing voices should be.

quote:

OrionTheWolf
A yes or no flag in a national database for the purpose of determining background checks gives no details. Your credit report invades your privacy more than it would. If it is kept at yes or no, and proceedings allowed to be brought before a judge in the case of exceptions, then I do not see where it would be much of an issue. The ones that would oppose are the ones that would oppose any law no matter how common sense because their cry is "if we allow this then eventually they will take all our guns", which I hear a lot around the Missouri area I am in living in now.

If the yes or no flag in a national database were in place, and the background check tied into it, would it have averted this shooting or others?

I am with Tweak on this and we need to find productive ways to make it safer. Ways that are not extreme, nor would cause a challenge with substance to the 2nd amendment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterCaneman

They (especially the Navy) are also very well-trained to operate fire-fighting equipment, and as such, they keep it located in convenient places around their work space. Why not their personal weapons as well? They're trained to fight, they need something to fight with. I'm no advocating each and every servicemember hump their PW everywhere they go (that's reserved for training and combat), just to make it easier for them to arm themselves in an emergency.

And what would have kept the shooter from further arming himself in that scenario? He had already shot armed security personnel and taken their weapons.

Numbers. There would be no way he could overwhelm several sections worth of armed people. One or two security guys I can see (I didn't hear if they were SPs or not-probably just Fed contractors themselves). And you can only shoot one at a time, so having more just means you got more crap to deal with. And while he's stopping to strip the bodies, that gives the personnel just that much more time to load out.

You misunderstand. What would have prevented him from shooting someone, taking their keys, opening the gun safe and standing in front of it shooting people as they came to arm themselves?

Again, numbers. One gun safe amongst many. Whole idea of decentralization-you don't keep all your eggs in one basket.