quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

And it is group sourced, shoddy reporting by the Post.

And it is still an abuse of language.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

If it is true that he obtained his weapon legally (the report doesn't detail precisely how he obtained the weapons) then all the diligence by all the police forces in the world wouldn't have made an iota of difference.

There is something seriously wrong with the system and it's really time you faced up to this fact.

If it is true that he bought the gun from a legal source what is wrong with the system is people not putting in the information that would have stopped him.
If the information was in the system he could not have gotten the firearm legally.
So either he got it illegally or the PEOPLE IN THE SYSTEM screwed up.
If the people enforcing the system aren't doing their jobs that has to be fixed.
I have "faced up" to this long ago and have repeated it in every gun thread.
The fact that I don't want to follow the lead of Australia doesn't change that.
BTW what happened to live and let live and keeping your nose out of other people's business?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Mass shootings =number of people shot....cos they were all victims of a shooter.
mass murder= dead victims, more than four dead. Doesnt take into account the injured, maimed, by the same person.
abuse of language?

So five dead is "mass murder"? Yeah, that's an abuse of language. Let Orwell rest in peace.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

sounds like some people just dont give a shit about the ones that got shot but didnt die. Just to further ignorance of the facts and therefore they are to gun freaks, irrelevant .
Ugh

Go back on your medication, Lucy.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Mass shootings =number of people shot....cos they were all victims of a shooter.
mass murder= dead victims, more than four dead. Doesnt take into account the injured, maimed, by the same person.
abuse of language?

So five dead is "mass murder"? Yeah, that's an abuse of language. Let Orwell rest in peace.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

sounds like some people just dont give a shit about the ones that got shot but didnt die. Just to further ignorance of the facts and therefore they are to gun freaks, irrelevant .
Ugh

Go back on your medication, Lucy.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

If it is true that he obtained his weapon legally (the report doesn't detail precisely how he obtained the weapons) then all the diligence by all the police forces in the world wouldn't have made an iota of difference.

There is something seriously wrong with the system and it's really time you faced up to this fact.

If it is true that he bought the gun from a legal source what is wrong with the system is people not putting in the information that would have stopped him.
If the information was in the system he could not have gotten the firearm legally.
So either he got it illegally or the PEOPLE IN THE SYSTEM screwed up.
If the people enforcing the system aren't doing their jobs that has to be fixed.
I have "faced up" to this long ago and have repeated it in every gun thread.
The fact that I don't want to follow the lead of Australia doesn't change that.
BTW what happened to live and let live and keeping your nose out of other people's business?

Here's a little exercise in logic:
1. In recent times, Australia had 2 incidents of mass shootings the first one in 1987, the second one in 1996 .
2. Australians were so horrified by these incidents that we changed the laws on gun ownership, with the specific goal of trying to prevent another mass shooting.
3. These changes were opposed hook line and sinker by the gun lobby here using the exact same arguments that the NRA still trots out in the USA today.
4. Australia has had no mass shootings since the laws were changed, nor has there been any significant increase in crime levels (contrary to the predictions of the gun lobby). In fact crime rates have fallen across the board here.*
5. In recent times, the USA has had multiple incidents of mass shootings.
6. The USA refuses to change its gun laws.
7. The USA still has multiple incidents of mass shootings today.

What is the obvious lesson one can learn from the above facts?
Do you agree that the gun lobby's predictions that crime in Australia would increase greatly if gun law changes were implemented have proved to be false?
Would you agree that the Australian law changes seem to have been successful in preventing mass shootings?
Is it more likely that the next mass shooting will occur in the USA or in Australia?

Please take as long as you need to consider your responses. Remember that all of the above facts are matters of the historical record, and can easily be shown to be such. I look forward to seeing your responses.

* I am not arguing that the law changes were responsible for the falls in crime rates, I am merely noting that the gun lobby's predictions of increases in crime rates were not borne out by the actual crime rates, ie the gun lobby's predictions were proved false by the data.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Here's a little exercise in logic:
1. In recent times, Australia had 2 incidents of mass shootings the first one in 1987, the second one in 1996 .
2. Australians were so horrified by these incidents that we changed the laws on gun ownership, with the specific goal of trying to prevent another mass shooting.
3. These changes were opposed hook line and sinker by the gun lobby here using the exact same arguments that the NRA still trots out in the USA today.
4. Australia has had no mass shootings since the laws were changed, nor has there been any significant increase in crime levels (contrary to the predictions of the gun lobby). In fact crime rates have fallen across the board here.*
5. In recent times, the USA has had multiple incidents of mass shootings.
6. The USA refuses to change its gun laws.
7. The USA still has multiple incidents of mass shootings today.

What is the obvious lesson one can learn from the above facts?
Do you agree that the gun lobby's predictions that crime in Australia would increase greatly if gun law changes were implemented have proved to be false?
Would you agree that the Australian law changes seem to have been successful in preventing mass shootings?
Is it more likely that the next mass shooting will occur in the USA or in Australia?

Please take as long as you need to consider your responses. Remember that all of the above facts are matters of the historical record, and can easily be shown to be such. I look forward to seeing your responses.

* I am not arguing that the law changes were responsible for the falls in crime rates, I am merely noting that the gun lobby's predictions of increases in crime rates were not borne out by the actual crime rates, ie the gun lobby's predictions were proved false by the data.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Agreed that the sale on the part of the dealer was legal, but the shooter could bot legally own the firearm.
A lot like SC they didn't enter that he was a drug user and here they didn't put in that he was forcibly committed. Are they that incompetent or do they want things like this to happen?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Agreed that the sale on the part of the dealer was legal, but the shooter could bot legally own the firearm.
A lot like SC they didn't enter that he was a drug user and here they didn't put in that he was forcibly committed. Are they that incompetent or do they want things like this to happen?

From the link, in case it wasn't covered elsewhere in the thread
*In 2008, Mr. Houser’s family asked a court in Georgia to commit him, and a Probate Court judge, Betty Cason, had him detained and sent to a mental hospital; it is not clear when he was released. But that was not an involuntary commitment for treatment, which would have required that the court report him to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, which in turn would have reported him to the federal government, Judge Cason said in an interview on Monday.

Sherry Lang, a spokeswoman for the Georgia bureau, agreed that “there was not an involuntary commitment done on him.”

An involuntary commitment would have required going back to court and obtaining a formal ruling that he should be held longer, because he posed a risk to himself or others.

*When Mr. Roof went to buy a gun in April, and a background check was requested, the F.B.I. examiner who handled the request saw that he had a recent arrest, and tried to get the police report. But a jail clerk had attributed the arrest to the wrong police force, so the F.B.I. examiner called the wrong agency, and never obtained the report.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/us/problems-riddle-system-to-check-buyers-of-guns.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Agreed that the sale on the part of the dealer was legal, but the shooter could bot legally own the firearm.
A lot like SC they didn't enter that he was a drug user and here they didn't put in that he was forcibly committed. Are they that incompetent or do they want things like this to happen?

From the link, in case it wasn't covered elsewhere in the thread
*In 2008, Mr. Houser’s family asked a court in Georgia to commit him, and a Probate Court judge, Betty Cason, had him detained and sent to a mental hospital; it is not clear when he was released. But that was not an involuntary commitment for treatment, which would have required that the court report him to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, which in turn would have reported him to the federal government, Judge Cason said in an interview on Monday.

Sherry Lang, a spokeswoman for the Georgia bureau, agreed that “there was not an involuntary commitment done on him.”

An involuntary commitment would have required going back to court and obtaining a formal ruling that he should be held longer, because he posed a risk to himself or others.

*When Mr. Roof went to buy a gun in April, and a background check was requested, the F.B.I. examiner who handled the request saw that he had a recent arrest, and tried to get the police report. But a jail clerk had attributed the arrest to the wrong police force, so the F.B.I. examiner called the wrong agency, and never obtained the report.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/us/problems-riddle-system-to-check-buyers-of-guns.html

That sounds wrong, not questioning you. If the judge was needed to commit his that doesn't sound voluntary. Sounds like maybe someone played fast and loose to keep from doing the reporting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Agreed that the sale on the part of the dealer was legal, but the shooter could bot legally own the firearm.
A lot like SC they didn't enter that he was a drug user and here they didn't put in that he was forcibly committed. Are they that incompetent or do they want things like this to happen?

From the link, in case it wasn't covered elsewhere in the thread
*In 2008, Mr. Houser’s family asked a court in Georgia to commit him, and a Probate Court judge, Betty Cason, had him detained and sent to a mental hospital; it is not clear when he was released. But that was not an involuntary commitment for treatment, which would have required that the court report him to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, which in turn would have reported him to the federal government, Judge Cason said in an interview on Monday.

Sherry Lang, a spokeswoman for the Georgia bureau, agreed that “there was not an involuntary commitment done on him.”

An involuntary commitment would have required going back to court and obtaining a formal ruling that he should be held longer, because he posed a risk to himself or others.

*When Mr. Roof went to buy a gun in April, and a background check was requested, the F.B.I. examiner who handled the request saw that he had a recent arrest, and tried to get the police report. But a jail clerk had attributed the arrest to the wrong police force, so the F.B.I. examiner called the wrong agency, and never obtained the report.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/us/problems-riddle-system-to-check-buyers-of-guns.html

That sounds wrong, not questioning you. If the judge was needed to commit his that doesn't sound voluntary. Sounds like maybe someone played fast and loose to keep from doing the reporting.

From reading how it was reported on some other sites, what I understand is that:
1. when he was initially committed, it was psychiatric evaluation, to determine whether or not there was mental illness
2. After the evaluation period, if the judge had ruled that he remain at the facility for treatment, that would have been considered involuntary commitment. I guess the psychiatric equivalent of innocent until proven guilty.

What is unclear, because the health records are sealed, are the details of his release-did he walk out against the doctor's recommendation? or was he released? was the issue of whether or not to get the judge to rule on extending his stay (which is what was necessary to be considered involuntary committed) ever addressed?