In other words, you are not ready to find specific fault with the proposal, or explain why it should not be seriously considered.
Hmmmm, I thought that is exactly what I did. Isn't the point to stop, or reduce, mass shootings? These have been committed by mentally ill individuals. How will liability insurance stop that? Compensation for injuries is not the same as preventing injury or death, which liability insurance will not do.
[This message has been edited by heybjorn (edited 05-26-2014).]
Originally posted by cliffw: Oh puleeze, . Mowed down ? Really ? What is the regularity of which you speak ? Take away those killed by people whom a large segment of our society agreed to restrictions on their gun rights. What is the number of those mowed down ? I would guess about 100 in the last 100 years. Maybe 200, tops. Per capita of population, or of legal gun owners, considering all the years, we are only talking of about an infinitesimal percentage.
I don't know what to make of that. The initial reports are that this Santa Barbara shooter passed the requisite background checks to legally acquire the gun(s) that he used.
Just 100 or 200 "mowed down" in the last 100 years? That sounds dubious to me. The Virginia Tech shooting spree gets you almost halfway to a 100, all by itself. Are we counting the "going postal" or workplace-related incidents where someone with a history of problems that reasonably should have excluded them from gun purchase via the above board channels used a weapon that they did, in fact, purchase after passing through the background checks? People with a history of problems that should reasonably exclude them legal gun purchases buying a gun "above board" (a legal transaction) and using it for a more ordinary crime such as a robbery, and sometimes the gun is used to commit homicide in the course of a robbery?
Sure, you cannot uphold 2A and at the same time preclude the possibility of a gun owner with a legal weapon and a clean record waking up one day and suddenly going psycho. Or preclude all the other scenarios.
I think there's still room for improvement without infringing on 2A.
But new or revised firearm purchase restrictions (background checks) would only be one part of any comprehensive approach, which is the only kind of approach that would improve things in the crimes with guns sector..
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-26-2014).]
Originally posted by heybjorn: Hmmmm, I thought that is exactly what I did. Isn't the point to stop, or reduce, mass shootings? These have been committed by mentally ill individuals. How will liability insurance stop that? Compensation for injuries is not the same as preventing injury or death, which liability insurance will not do.
My thought is that in a case like Sandy Hook, where the shooter used guns that were purchased by the mother, or possibly in this case, where it seems that the shooter may have been enabled to afford his guns with money provided by his family, that liability insurance premiums would (statistically, over time) curb some unwise decisions by people who unintentionally become the enablers of some of these shooting sprees and other crimes using guns.
I think that the case at Virginia Tech may come into this same category of a family being too laissez-faire in financially supporting a troubled family member who then afforded himself some legal gun/ammo buys, and so, becoming an "enabler".
I think it is a fair-minded concept. Pending a complete examination of it. I'm only putting it up here for comments. I'm not campaigning for it.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-26-2014).]
Firearms liability insurance would be the perfect backdoor into gun registration and another way to insure that the great unwashed are priced out of the market; but we all know that those of little means have a greater propensity for violence anyway and if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear, right? So, are you rich enough to own that evil tool, are you enough of an evil tool? Prove it! Lay down your cash and carry your papers. A house divided will not stand. Fear the government that fears it's citizens.
Originally posted by williegoat: Firearms liability insurance would be the perfect backdoor into gun registration and another way to insure that the great unwashed are priced out of the market; but we all know that those of little means have a greater propensity for violence anyway and if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear, right? So, are you rich enough to own that evil tool, are you enough of an evil tool? Prove it! Lay down your cash and carry your papers. A house divided will not stand. Fear the government that fears it's citizens.
Why stop there? Why not set up an individual mandate and use tax revenues to provide at least one firearm and ammo to every head of household or individual who falls below a threshold for income and/or fungible assets? "ObamaGun".
Originally posted by rinselberg: Just 100 or 200 "mowed down" in the last 100 years? That sounds dubious to me. The Virginia Tech shooting spree gets you almost halfway to a 100, all by itself.
Give me a number. I will take 1,000, . I will take two thousand. To the percentage of gun owners the ratio would still be infinitesimal. Less than .001% I would guess. We should call that "mowed down" ? We should make more laws, ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: The initial reports are that this Santa Barbara shooter passed the requisite background checks to legally acquire the gun(s) that he used. Are we counting the "going postal" or workplace-related incidents where someone with a history of problems that reasonably should have excluded them from gun purchase via the above board channels used a weapon that they did, in fact, purchase after passing through the background checks?
Forget the fact that many more people are "mowed down" by illegal guns. What exactly is wrong with the background checks (of which I do not agree with) ? How would you change them ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: People with a history of problems that should reasonably exclude them legal gun purchases buying a gun "above board" (a legal transaction) and using it for a more ordinary crime such as a robbery, and sometimes the gun is used to commit homicide in the course of a robbery?
Who do you propose should be the "history of problems" police ? Everybody has problems. Everybody has emotions. Define problems.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: I think there's still room for improvement without infringing on 2A.
What part of the words "shall not be infringed" do you not understand ? A felon being prohibited from owning a gun is an infringement. Being required to pass a background check is an infringement. Even a positive mental health requirement is an infringement, not to mention the fact that our country has a right to privacy, which includes medical issues. I begrudgingly accept callous actions to restrict gun possession rights.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: But new or revised firearm purchase restrictions (background checks) would only be one part of any comprehensive approach, which is the only kind of approach that would improve things in the crimes with guns sector.
Did you forget that most gun crimes were committed by people existing background checks denied ownership to ? Would not a firearms restriction be an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms ? Do you not realize that our government does not do "comprehensive" well, at all ?
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Liability insurance requirements for gun ownership. Not the complete solution, but in concert with other changes to reduce the likelihood of these kind of incidents. This would privatize some of the responsibility for gun purchase background checks, shifting part of it onto the insurance providers. Victims would be compensated from the amounts collected as liability insurance purchases and policy renewals.
Would not a requirement be a infringement ? People can already be sued for bad decisions which affect them. The amount of claims, again, would be infinitesimal. Well maybe not ... as greedy lawyers would game the system. Make insurance available. Not many would need it. Making it mandatory just punishes those that should not need it. It also makes insurance companies rich, . Thanks for the idea, .
quote
Originally posted by Patrick: And your smug side is coming across plenty strong.
My "smug side", ? It's like you already accept the fact of my reply.
quote
Originally posted by Patrick: Stay in denial if you wish, I don't care. I won't waste my time dealing with the rest of your post.
I didn't expect you would could. Denial, . None here. Not like the delusion of the cities with the most strictest gun control laws having to worst gun crime problems, including the "mowing down" of innocents.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 05-26-2014).]
Firearms liability insurance would be the perfect backdoor into gun registration and another way to insure that the great unwashed are priced out of the market; but we all know that those of little means have a greater propensity for violence anyway and if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear, right? So, are you rich enough to own that evil tool, are you enough of an evil tool? Prove it! Lay down your cash and carry your papers. A house divided will not stand. Fear the government that fears it's citizens.
Amen! Unless that was entirely sarcasm, then, Amen!
I was trying to remember being young and no girls liking me, very few friends, and wondering if I was ever really gonna' be anyone. There really wasn't a whole lot of time to worry about it. Between holding a job at day & partying at night I didn't really feel like I was missing out on a better life or being overlooked. It just felt like that was my place in the world.
Never once did I think about killing people just because my life wasn't more then I thought it should be...
Originally posted by cliffw: Forget the fact that many more people are "mowed down" by illegal guns. What exactly is wrong with the background checks (of which I do not agree with) ? How would you change them?
Dunno, exactly. That would all be hashed out by the new "rinselberg Committee on Gun Crime Reduction"
In this latest Santa Barbara case, it may well be that there is room for process improvements, without changing existing legislation.
One thing that caught my eye is that when the killer's parents became alarmed by some of his Internet postings, they initiated some contact. And two police officers were dispatched to check on the young guy. But these officers were not informed about the Internet postings. These were the officers that talked to him briefly and decided that he was not an immediate threat.
I also wonder if the mental health professionals who had contact with him were fully on top of their game. Was he misdiagnosed? Should they have pushed in some legal way that may have been open to them for some kind of intervention, or used some latitude that they may have had (within the medical privacy laws) to make an entry into the NICS database that would have prevented him from purchasing a gun in an above board transaction?
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: Do you not realize that our government does not do "comprehensive" well, at all ?
I think that it is often the case that certain industries and advocacy groups have always been able to exert enough influence, using lobbying and other tactics, to ensure that government does not do "comprehensive".
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 05-27-2014).]
Dunno, exactly. That would all be hashed out by the new "rinselberg Committee on Gun Crime Reduction"
I like it. Will all future rinselberg committees have anagram titles, too?
quote
One thing that caught my eye is that when the killer's parents became alarmed by some of his Internet postings, they initiated some contact. And two police officers were dispatched to check on the young guy. But these officers were not informed about the Internet postings. These were the officers that talked to him briefly and decided that he was not an immediate threat.
quote
I also wonder if the mental health professionals who had contact with him were fully on top of their game.
No disrespect intended to either profession, these two officers were/are qualified mental health professionals, capable of making a reasonable decision? Were the psyc docs competent? How do we decide when someone is dangerous? And what do we do when " mental health professional " determine someone is potentially dangerous? I know depressed people who were sent to their family doctor by another doctor for help. The family doc simply prescribed Celexa, which did not help at all.
Who gets to make the necessary decisions? Government agencies certainly should not; the record there is horrible. The last thing I want is to fall into the hands of an unaccountable agency. Family members, who should certainly recognize potential violent behavior? I don't know.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: Do you not realize that our government does not do "comprehensive" well, at all ?
Exactly, though I would amend that to " no government."
So, I finally hear a snippit of the grieving Dad's emotional outburst.
quote
blah blah blah ... the politicians talk about gun rights. What about Chris' right to live.
What right to live ? Life does not promise you a rose garden either. What good is life if you can not live it in freedom ? That is why we have gun rights.
I never met a shrink that didn't need a shrink more than anyone else I ever met. And you want to let them decide if anyone else is should have a gun, WTF last one I talked to was so afraid of guns he thought they should be banned. I guess that makes him qualified to be the head of that board now doesn't it.
NOT!
All the parents had to do was be parents before they sent him to college and stop codling him and give him some help before hand, instead of another new Mercedes or BMW like they did. get him some help, not send him out into the public where he was someone else's problem.
If only a couple of the witnesses of the first, second, third, fourth, or fifth murder did not feel that the government required them to be unarmed. In most of California you will be harassed if you are armed and someone sees you but, to the few that choose to disobey the laws, you usually are in a shooting gallery where the targets do not shoot back. I feel bad for all involved but, I follow my rule of "not in my presence" and could hve been in a position to do something if....I hope there is never the chance.
[This message has been edited by FriendGregory (edited 05-27-2014).]
After I picked up the handgun, I brought it back to my room and felt a new sense of power. I was now armed. Who's the alpha male now, bitches? I thought to myself, regarding all of the girls who've looked down on me in the past.
Just heard a news report with some audio of a chant that is going on right now at the memorial for this murderous act - people are apparently chanting for more gun control legislation.
But weren't 3 of his victims killed by a knife? Where are the chants for more knife control legislation? Where is the outrage against the National Cutlery Association?
Originally posted by Darth Fiero: Where are the chants for more knife control legislation?
quote
Originally posted by Darth Fiero: I have yet to see anyone demanding more automobile control legislation...
More importantly ... where is the call for better help for the mentally incapacitated ? Whether they might kill someone or not. My wife has worked the mental health field for twenty years. Not enough is being done.
WHY IS IT ONLY THE GUN IS BLAMED IN THESE KINDS OF INSTANCES??? WHY NOT THE CAR, THE KNIFE, OR ANYTHING ELSE THE PERPETRATORS USE TO HARM OR KILL???
Because it is in the best interest of those that want us weak to forward any agenda that keeps people in fear of guns. That way, the fearful themselves will eventually strip the guns out of the very hands of the only people that can guarantee the continuation of their freedom...themselves. The benefactors of such a plan won't have to do a thing. We will forge our own chains.
Welcome to the machine.
[This message has been edited by Boondawg (edited 05-27-2014).]
More importantly ... where is the call for better help for the mentally incapacitated ? Whether they might kill someone or not. My wife has worked the mental health field for twenty years. Not enough is being done.
And nothing will ever get done on this front as long as the left / gun grabbing lobby can continue to use tragic events such as this to further their agenda.
Im late to the party, but heres my take on this particular incident. Everyone on tv is crying again for more gun control or bans...just like every other time. He shot 3 people. He also stabbed 3 others, and yesterday some woman stabbed all 3 of her children to death and tried to stab her own mother. Wheres all the people at for banning knives...not a word about it anywhere. So 3 are dead from being shot and 6 are dead from being stabbed and the guns are what were worrying about. People need to take responsibility for their kids and friends being nutcases. Mom and dad dont want to let anyone know their sons a lunatic, so they hide it. Everytime someone kills somebody their friends and parents come out of the woodwork about how great a kid he is/was, and never did anything wrong. I still say they should start locking up parents along with the killers. Their just as responsible in my book...if not more so. Most parents now just let the kids have the run of it after they pass their 'cute' age. I see it first hand everyday with things like 16 year olds out driving or walking around the streets at 3am.
What I don't get it why this kid couldn't get laid... He's not ugly, based on his writings (the style, not the substance) he's not stupid - so what was the problem?
What I don't get it why this kid couldn't get laid... He's not ugly, based on his writings (the style, not the substance) he's not stupid - so what was the problem?
He was a serious creep. Women notice that and stay away. He also had Asperger's and probably had social issues too. None of that though should take anything away from the fact that he was also a psychopath/sociopath. He had no compassion, no empathy, no emotional capacity for others and was obviously skilled at covering up like most psychopaths. He lied with impunity to the police and they believed him. He had no sense of guilt and had no compunctions against killing those that he felt had wronged him.
I have a hard time believing that those around him did not realize this very early on. Yet, the parents coddled him and gave him money, cars and other things. He should have been committed to a psychiatric hospital a long time ago. This is a failure of his parents and the whole mental health system.
Talk sometime to a special ed teacher. They see this type of person quite frequently. The schools are trying to mainstream them, but unfortunately there is no cure for this type of personality.
A girl he had a school crush on said he was just creepy. Girls are good about picking up weird vibes from strange guys. If I was a girl he was hitting on, his ego would be a huge turn off with his first sentence. I see a lot of 'gods gifts' all the time, and their usually jocks.
What I don't get it why this kid couldn't get laid... He's not ugly, based on his writings (the style, not the substance) he's not stupid - so what was the problem?
Did you watch the video? (Serious question, not a dig)
He wrote poetically and wasn't ugly, but the way he talked was just weird. It wasn't just his ego, it was his tone. And did you hear his laugh? He sounded like a bad guy straight out of a movie. Granted, those typically have women... but that laugh was ****ing weird.
Asperger syndrome (AS), also known as Asperger disorder (AD) or simply Asperger's, is an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) that is characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction and nonverbal communication, alongside restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests. It differs from other autism spectrum disorders by its relative preservation of linguistic and cognitive development. Although not required for diagnosis, physical clumsiness and atypical (peculiar, odd) use of language are frequently reported.[1][2] The diagnosis of Asperger's was eliminated in the 2013 fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) and replaced by a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder on a severity scale.[3]
My wife has a nephew that has Asperger’s and although he is very intelligent an (A+ student) and not ugly he has NO social skills. Believe me this kid will never get laid by a "normal" girl.
As for blaming the parents (that’s just dumb) you can teach all the life skills you want to an (AS) kid but they will never be “normal”. Women pick up on this, hell anyone who meets an (AS) kid will pick up on this. I agree trying to include these children into normal society is a big mistake. They are not “normal” and will never comply with the social norms of society. So what to do with them? I don’t have the answer but in days past when the tribe figured out that junior was not right in the head they took care of it.
As ignorant Americans most don’t even know how many rights to their freedom they have. Why do people in this country think it’s easy to strip a fellow American of their rights to freedom? Probably because they watch too many reruns of “Cops”. What do people think it is easy to get someone committed involuntary to a mental hospital? Well it’s not! Why because they have rights as an American citizen! Mental health professionals have more rules and regulations to follow than any other medical profession. Some of the comments I have read on the internet led me to believe most Americans want their freedom to be easily taking from them?
“Rep. Tim Murphy, R-Pa., a child psychologist, has introduced legislation that would push states to change these criteria, permitting involuntary hospitalization based on a patient's "need for treatment," a standard now used by only 18 states.”
There’s a lot of Monday morning quarterbacks on this one. Man what a load of crap some people throw out there after one of these incidents.
“The country should focus on expanding crisis intervention teams, so that trained mental health workers can accompany police officers called to psychiatric emergencies, Honberg says.”
They have been doing this in Texas for many years. That was my wife’s job from 1998 to 2004 before joining the military. I laugh when people think Texas behind the times!!!
Please if you want more people committed to mental hospitals use this incident to start letter writing campaigns to change the laws governing involuntary commitment.
My wife will be more than happy to put you or your family member into a mental hospital against your will... if it becomes easier her job becomes easier... commit everyone!!! Also don’t forget to ask for mental health screenings before you can own a gun. She will be more than happy to deny you the right to own a gun!
I keep seeing comments to the effect that many of these shooters over the last 10 years either have clear mental issues or that their parents have tried to get them help or they have been seen by doctors who specilize in these types of diagnoses. Additionally, several of you on this forum as well as other forums have called for greater restrictions on the ability of those individuals whose trolley has a hard time staying on track.
While it has been awhile since I purchased a firearm, I do remember that one of the questions on the paperwork asks whether the purchaser has been diagnosed as mentally challenged or if the individual has spent time in an institution. This is an area where it has been stated in the press and in the news media as being a problem. Many doctors do not want to make this call and HIPAA regs prevent this information from being uploaded to state databases. Even when this information is sent to the state agencies, the information is not uploaded to the Fed database. Now mind you that uploading this information is vital to the Federal background checks.(Don't worry, a large number of felony convictions and VPOs don'tget uploaded as well). Ergo, HIPAA probably needs to be revised to make this happen.
As an aside, when I was in California, back in 86-87, the waiting period for a purchase was 2 weeks. An individual puchased an AR-15 from a gun shop in (I believe) the Bay area. He waited 16 days before he picked up the rifle. He used this rifle to shoot up a McDonalds in the SanFrancisco area and killed over 20 children. If the information had been in the system, it would have disclosed the fact he had spent time in a facility in Idaho.
. I will take two thousand. To the percentage of gun owners the ratio would still be infinitesimal. Less than .001% I would guess. We should call that "mowed down" ? We should make more laws, 
?
.
?
And you want to let them decide if anyone else is should have a gun, WTF last one I talked to was so afraid of guns he thought they should be banned. I guess that makes him qualified to be the head of that board now doesn't it. 
