PSA: What to do during a mass shooting

[Calliecake]

The Texas shooter should never have been able to purchase any weapons under existing law.

If he didn't have his own gun he could have taken a family members gun. There are no laws that your guns need to be locked up. This also happened in Texas where there are an abundance of guns.

GUNS are the problem!

 

[redwood66]

I’m in agreement for making some kind of database for people who have been hospitalized on a 5150 hold. I don’t know if someone like that should be allowed to own a gun. I would hope that someone who’s been 5150’d would self monitor, but then again, you can’t hope for perfection out of any human.

Instead of a database for all mentally ill people, I think we should address the problem of how we treat our mentally ill population. When someone goes to the ER and says they are suicidal, it is now being said that this is a level 4 brain crisis, like a heart attack or a stroke. Then these people are being told there isn’t a hospital room for them for two weeks.

As a nation, we don’t take mental illness seriously. I don’t know for sure but I am venturing a guess that the fallout of ignoring this problem probably costs us far more money than if we were to treat it.

I agree with you and something should absolutely be done. HIPPA gets in the way and people have to decide if it is worth it to keep guns out of these people's hands.

 

[Calliecake]

@redwood66 why are you not posting in some republican gun loving forum, instead of going on about frothing liberals who believe in common sense gun regulation. Trust me you won't find us in a Republican forum.

 

[ksinger]

I’m in agreement for making some kind of database for people who have been hospitalized on a 5150 hold. I don’t know if someone like that should be allowed to own a gun. I would hope that someone who’s been 5150’d would self monitor, but then again, you can’t hope for perfection out of any human.

Instead of a database for all mentally ill people, I think we should address the problem of how we treat our mentally ill population. When someone goes to the ER and says they are suicidal, it is now being said that this is a level 4 brain crisis, like a heart attack or a stroke. Then these people are being told there isn’t a hospital room for them for two weeks.

As a nation, we don’t take mental illness seriously. I don’t know for sure but I am venturing a guess that the fallout of ignoring this problem probably costs us far more money than if we were to treat it.

As a tiny threadjack - House Cat, just wondering, did you ever watch that film, Crazywise? If you did was it any good?

 

[redwood66]

@redwood66 why are you not posting in some republican gun loving forum, instead of going on about frothing liberals who believe in common sense gun regulation. Trust me you won't find us in a Republican forum.

Try the ignore function if I bother you so terribly. Discussion with opposing views is part of life and this is a public forum. You want to discuss what should happen to things I own that you do not. I think I have a right to have an opinion on this but that I express that opinion gives you consternation. I am not interested in an echo chamber but it seems you are.

 

[House Cat]

As a tiny threadjack - House Cat, just wondering, did you ever watch that film, Crazywise? If you did was it any good?

dang, you know what? Life got away from me and I forgot all about it. I have time in the next few days to watch it. Thanks for reminding me!

 

[ksinger]

@redwood66 why are you not posting in some republican gun loving forum, instead of going on about frothing liberals who believe in common sense gun regulation. Trust me you won't find us in a Republican forum.

To be fair, I'M the one who coined the "frothing liberals", and I'm a liberal. I have heard more than one person here (and in many other similar threads in the past) say we should confiscate guns. Anyone who wants confiscation is out of touch. Anyone who thinks it could happen, is also out in left field There really should be zero talk of confiscation on either side. It's a phantasm.

 

[redwood66]

You like NY times?
OK, here is another article from the media.
This is about the added benefit of lithium. Let us add it into water and call it a day. I heard Colorado has super low levels.

Trump says it is not a gun it is mental illness? People post that unlinke Australia, we have a different culture here? (As if Australia did not start with convicts. And now they are OK with tougher gun laws, and we are not). OK, let us do something with own brains then. Lithium seems to be neuroprotective (and may have added anticancer benefits).

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/opinion/sunday/should-we-all-take-a-bit-of-lithium.html

With all due respect what difference does it make whether I like the NYT or not? The information in the article is correct and the Obama DOJ determined that a new ban would have little effect on gun homicides.

 

[Calliecake]

@ksinger , I've not heard anyone here say all guns should be confiscated. Common sense guns laws and restrictions are no where near saying all guns should be confiscated.

You are not bothering me @redwood66. Thoughts and prayers, Callie

 

[redwood66]

@ksinger , I've not heard anyone here say all guns should be confiscated. Common sense guns laws and restrictions are no where near saying all guns should be confiscated.

You are not bothering me @redwood66. Thoughts and prayers, Callie

That is good to know.

ksinger probably is talking about confiscation of assault weapons which is what people seem to indicate they want when they say that civilians should not have them. The confiscation of existing weapons cannot happen even if there is a new ban.

 

[ksinger]

@ksinger , I've not heard anyone here say all guns should be confiscated. Common sense guns laws and restrictions are no where near saying all guns should be confiscated.

You are not bothering me @redwood66. Thoughts and prayers, Callie

Sorry guys. It's sometimes hard to forget all the stuff that's gone before and stick to the thread at hand. Some of us have read and weighed in on this topic for years and years and they start bleeding together. There have been quite a few times in my recollection when confiscation has been touted.

In my own personal ideal world, guns would be obtainable, but heavily regulated, and there would be a national database of who owned what. I say that as a gun owner. I say it also knowing how hard it would be to get it. As I said, start small, classify certain guns as class III - make the hoops that must be jumped through, higher and smaller. And then hope subsequent generations (if they survive) will have more political will and clout than we do now.

 

[t-c]

Yes it does because some of the "frothing liberals who know nothing about guns" ksinger is talking about are posting in this thread. They are the ones who should realize that what they want will never happen so we should move on to things that will actually make a difference.

THAT is what you got from @ksinger 's post?!? No wonder....

 

[redwood66]

Nevermind. Not even worth it.

 

[Arkteia]

To be fair, I'M the one who coined the "frothing liberals", and I'm a liberal. I have heard more than one person here (and in many other similar threads in the past) say we should confiscate guns. Anyone who wants confiscation is out of touch. Anyone who thinks it could happen, is also out in left field There really should be zero talk of confiscation on either side. It's a phantasm.

Not confiscate.

But isn't it surprising - we have fire drills, CPR drills, earthquake drills, shooter-in-the school drills now, but we have zero recommendations/plans/ideas as to what to do with the incredible amount of assault rifles in private possession?

How to limit? Is a different question. I think the best way is price policy.

What to do with the mass shooters and how can we prevent it? It is another issue.

I think, first, the profiles of these people, the mass shooters, the details, need to be known to public. We do not need to link them to the names, necessarily.

Second - from my knowledge, it is usually a white man in late 20-es or early 30-es, single, a chronic loner, with IQ higher-than-average, occasional history of mental illness (not always), and most often a history of being bullied at school.

Is this what makes these people so full of hate towards themselves and the world?

Is there anything we can do when kids are growing up to prevent forming a certain personality?

How can we include these loners into groups?

This is something we'll have to discuss one day as well. But it should not take the place of the discussion about limiting the access to assault rifles and the amount of guns on hands.

 

[Bonfire]

@redwood66 A few here are actually listening to each other and exchanging ideas. Some good ones too. But obviously it’s more fun to beat up opposing viewpoints and personal attacks. I think that was the purpose of the thread. Don’t give up Red, never give up. You have a lot to offer and you always listen to others without rancor

 

[ksinger]

Not confiscate.

But isn't it surprising - we have fire drills, CPR drills, earthquake drills, shooter-in-the school drills now, but we have zero recommendations/plans/ideas as to what to do with the incredible amount of assault rifles in private possession?

How to limit? Is a different question. I think the best way is price policy.

What to do with the mass shooters and how can we prevent it? It is another issue.

I think, first, the profiles of these people, the mass shooters, the details, need to be known to public. We do not need to link them to the names, necessarily.

Second - from my knowledge, it is usually a white man in late 20-es or early 30-es, single, a chronic loner, with IQ higher-than-average, occasional history of mental illness (not always), and most often a history of being bullied at school.

Is this what makes these people so full of hate towards themselves and the world?

Is there anything we can do when kids are growing up to prevent forming a certain personality?

How can we include these loners into groups?

This is something we'll have to discuss one day as well. But it should not take the place of the discussion about limiting the access to assault rifles and the amount of guns on hands.

Read "Angry White Men" by sociologist Michael Kimmel.

You know me by now......there's a book for that!!!

 

[House Cat]

Not confiscate.

But isn't it surprising - we have fire drills, CPR drills, earthquake drills, shooter-in-the school drills now, but we have zero recommendations/plans/ideas as to what to do with the incredible amount of assault rifles in private possession?

How to limit? Is a different question. I think the best way is price policy.

What to do with the mass shooters and how can we prevent it? It is another issue.

I think, first, the profiles of these people, the mass shooters, the details, need to be known to public. We do not need to link them to the names, necessarily.

Second - from my knowledge, it is usually a white man in late 20-es or early 30-es, single, a chronic loner, with IQ higher-than-average, occasional history of mental illness (not always), and most often a history of being bullied at school.

Is this what makes these people so full of hate towards themselves and the world?

Is there anything we can do when kids are growing up to prevent forming a certain personality?

How can we include these loners into groups?

This is something we'll have to discuss one day as well. But it should not take the place of the discussion about limiting the access to assault rifles and the amount of guns on hands.

This gives me a new way to think about this problem. It is a long term solution, but I feel it might be the real answer.

Loneliness and bullying cause a whole host of society’s problems.

I wonder if there is a genetic vulnerability as well. Sort of a kink in the chain that causes these men to snap. We won’t know until the lobbyists back off and allow us to have an honest look at the people who commit mass shootings.

Thank you.

 

[redwood66]

Passage of Prop 47 in 2014 in California is one example of stepping backwards on existing gun laws. They made it a misdemeanor to steal or be in possession of a stolen firearm instead of the felony it was originally. Now that person does not have a felony charge and can legally still purchase a weapon if they have no other disqualifying reasons. And they likely do no jail time.

https://www.facebook.com/SacSheriff/posts/530414980429028?fref=nf

 

[redwood66]

California is making it very tough with plenty of hoops to purchase weapons legally for the law abiding. But they just signed into law SB 620 last month that removes the previously mandatory sentencing enhancement for the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime. Please tell me how that is common sense.

 

[Calliecake]

The person who committed the church shooting had done so many awful things I'm surprised he wasn't spending years in jail. He was truly was a disgusting human being.

 

[House Cat]

California is making it very tough with plenty of hoops to purchase weapons legally for the law abiding. But they just signed into law SB 620 last month that removes the previously mandatory sentencing enhancement for the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime. Please tell me how that is common sense.

I just read a little on this. In the article I read, an example was given where a kid was riding along in a drive by and wasn’t the active shooter. In the mandatory sentencing law, he automatically received 10 additional years. The new law allows the judge the freedom to sentence as he sees fit. It isn’t that they are making things easier on those who are committing felonies, it is that they don’t want to be forced to pass out felonies to those who aren’t committing them.

 

[redwood66]

I just read a little on this. In the article I read, an example was given where a kid was riding along in a drive by and wasn’t the active shooter. In the mandatory sentencing law, he automatically received 10 additional years. The new law allows the judge the freedom to sentence as he sees fit. It isn’t that they are making things easier on those who are committing felonies, it is that they don’t want to be forced to pass out felonies to those who aren’t committing them.

HC I appreciate you dearly and know you have a good heart. But just riding along? You mean a drive-by shooting right? The new law allows them to release thousands of inmates who have used firearms in the commission of crimes. I do not believe for one minute that most judges will sentence someone harsher for robbery or any other crime if the person uses a weapon now. They don't want to pass out felonies to those who aren't committing them? Possession of a weapon in the commission of a crime should be a felony with harsh penalties. If you are riding along in a drive-by shooting then you are actively participating in the outcome. I am pretty sure he was not a hostage.

There are plenty of problems with our justice system and the lesser crimes of drugs and the like should be reviewed for sentencing issues. But the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime or illegal possession of one should carry very stiff penalties if we really care about "doing something" otherwise all the ranting is hollow. Those are the people who commit the preponderance of the "mass" shootings where 4 or more people are injured or killed.

We need new laws for people who are legally buying weapons for protection (or other legal uses), but should feel bad for people who are actually using them to commit crimes? This is completely backwards thinking to me. So it seems that people are not really interested in the ones who actually commit gun violence or curbing it - you will never get rid of it. The study that was posted earlier about where gangs get guns in Chicago shows that most are not obtained legally through an FFL by the person doing the crime.

You wonder why gun owners don't trust anti-gun people when it comes to gun laws, this is a big reason right here.

 

[Karl_K]

The person who committed the church shooting had done so many awful things I'm surprised he wasn't spending years in jail. He was truly was a disgusting human being.

That we agree on.
We are locking up people for years for selling some weed but letting violent criminals walk.
A while back there was a shooting in my area.
The guy had 5 yes 5 active felony cases.
Meaning he had been arrested for five felonies in the recent past some of them violent and he was on the street having paid $0 in bail.

 

[House Cat]

HC I appreciate you dearly and know you have a good heart. But just riding along? You mean a drive-by shooting right? The new law allows them to release thousands of inmates who have used firearms in the commission of crimes. I do not believe for one minute that most judges will sentence someone harsher for robbery or any other crime if the person uses a weapon now. They don't want to pass out felonies to those who aren't committing them? Possession of a weapon in the commission of a crime should be a felony with harsh penalties. If you are riding along in a drive-by shooting then you are actively participating in the outcome. I am pretty sure he was not a hostage.

There are plenty of problems with our justice system and the lesser crimes of drugs and the like should be reviewed for sentencing issues. But the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime or illegal possession of one should carry very stiff penalties if we really care about "doing something" otherwise all the ranting is hollow. Those are the people who commit the preponderance of the "mass" shootings where 4 or more people are injured or killed.

We need new laws for people who are legally buying weapons for protection (or other legal uses), but should feel bad for people who are actually using them to commit crimes? This is completely backwards thinking to me. So it seems that people are not really interested in the ones who actually commit gun violence or curbing it - you will never get rid of it. The study that was posted earlier about where gangs get guns in Chicago shows that most are not obtained legally through an FFL by the person doing the crime.

You wonder why gun owners don't trust anti-gun people when it comes to gun laws, this is a big reason right here.

Thanks for the kindness, Red. The feeling’s mutual. Honestly, I can think of a few scenarios where someone would find themselves in a drive by. Things happen.

I used to have a database on hand that showed that most mass shootings were domestic in nature, murder/suicide. They are not due to gang violence.

Here, it has been changed over the past two years from a map into a more ... friendly website.
http://www.gannett-cdn.com/GDContent/mass-killings/index.html#title

I knew I would get it about the sentencing. I know it is idealistic to think that people would be sentenced harshly in California.