Gun violence solution.

[Grand Mal]

Democrats want more gun control based on the Las Vegas shooting. Even though they have no clue how the guy got the guns, whether he modified them or bought em that way, legally or illegally. Nothing. Yet they want more gun control. Tell me, just HOW in the world are they supposed to make informed decisions on what would have prevented this mass shooting without knowing a single damn detail? That's a rhetorical question of course. This just proves that they don't actually care about curbing mass shootings or violence made with guns. They just want to control the guns period. Because they know that guns are a threat to THEM. Because with gun ownership they are unable to force people into whatever society that they deem appropriate regardless if it is The Peoples Will or not.

If they truly cared about reducing gun violence then they would have at least waited for more details to come out in order to try and make policy specific to this case. If they truly cared about reducing gun violence then they would be enacting policies that would actually do that. Things like:

Improved education system.
Justice system reform. Meaning instead of punishing people they actually attempt to reform people. If someone is not reformed then leave them in prison. Period.
Universal Healthcare. (which includes mental health) Yeah, that means that the rich will probably have to pay more. Small price to pay to keep our society healthy and reduce violence committed...be it with a gun or otherwise. (not to mention they would benefit from healthier workers which means more productivity)

JUST those three things alone would reduce gun violence drastically if done right. There are some other areas which we could improve also...such as economically.

What do I mean by "done right"? Well for instance our educational system. Study the top 5-10 ranked educational systems in the entire world. Adapt it and enact it to our own society. We're obviously doing something wrong atm. Known fact that the more educated a populace, the less violence that there is.

And none of those policies have a thing to do with gun control.

If you truly want to reduce gun violence then THESE are the things that need to be looked at. Not inanimate objects that won't do crap without a human being behind them. IE: Human beings are the problem. Not guns. Fix the damn human beings and you'll fix the violence.

applause!

I said elsewhere, this problem, mass killings, isn't a gun control problem, it's an 'America is too violent a society' problem. Lots of things come back to the same 'America is too violent a society' problem. Any attempts to , well, not solve but at least relieve the problem that don't address the violence issue are just putting a band-aide on a sucking chest wound.
It'd be easier, and it's tempting, if it could be chalked up to gun control and silver-bullet legislation could lead to a solution but that's not how it works. That's a conservative approach, design society through legislation. Never works. The long road, the hard road, changing society and making it less violent, is daunting and confusing and full of failures but it's the only route to solving the problem.
Or, just say it's how it is and focus on damage control. That's easier, too.

 

[TaterTots]

Democrats want more gun control based on the Las Vegas shooting. Even though they have no clue how the guy got the guns, whether he modified them or bought em that way, legally or illegally. Nothing. Yet they want more gun control. Tell me, just HOW in the world are they supposed to make informed decisions on what would have prevented this mass shooting without knowing a single damn detail? That's a rhetorical question of course. This just proves that they don't actually care about curbing mass shootings or violence made with guns. They just want to control the guns period. Because they know that guns are a threat to THEM. Because with gun ownership they are unable to force people into whatever society that they deem appropriate regardless if it is The Peoples Will or not.

If they truly cared about reducing gun violence then they would have at least waited for more details to come out in order to try and make policy specific to this case. If they truly cared about reducing gun violence then they would be enacting policies that would actually do that. Things like:

Improved education system.
Justice system reform. Meaning instead of punishing people they actually attempt to reform people. If someone is not reformed then leave them in prison. Period.
Universal Healthcare. (which includes mental health) Yeah, that means that the rich will probably have to pay more. Small price to pay to keep our society healthy and reduce violence committed...be it with a gun or otherwise. (not to mention they would benefit from healthier workers which means more productivity)

JUST those three things alone would reduce gun violence drastically if done right. There are some other areas which we could improve also...such as economically.

What do I mean by "done right"? Well for instance our educational system. Study the top 5-10 ranked educational systems in the entire world. Adapt it and enact it to our own society. We're obviously doing something wrong atm. Known fact that the more educated a populace, the less violence that there is.

And none of those policies have a thing to do with gun control.

If you truly want to reduce gun violence then THESE are the things that need to be looked at. Not inanimate objects that won't do crap without a human being behind them. IE: Human beings are the problem. Not guns. Fix the damn human beings and you'll fix the violence.

If you're gonna do all that, you better get rid of CARS.

 

[Jredbaron96]

(breathe)

Mental health awareness has absolutely zero to do with a lack of available mental health care and universal health care as cited by the individual as a component of the problem and solution.

Bull****. As Kal Stang pointed out there needs to be facilities available to care for mentally ill people once they are identified. You're zeroing in pn universal health care because of some vendetta against it when its not even the main point of the OP. The vast majority of mass shooters had undiagnosed mental illnesses.

Realizing all this...perhaps its YOU that is talking out of your ass when you decided to jump in on a conversation that apparently you are ill prepared to address.

:roll:

 

[VanceMack]

Bull****. As Kal Stang pointed out there needs to be facilities available to care for mentally ill people once they are identified. You're zeroing in pn universal health care because of some vendetta against it when its not even the main point of the OP. The vast majority of mass shooters had undiagnosed mental illnesses.





:roll:

FFS

Using a tragic event such as this promoting as a solution 'mental health flaws' flies in the face of reality. There is zero indication this individual did not have access to mental health care. You pointed out Harris...he was ****ing UNDER mental health care. So was Lanza. So was Holmes. So jumping on a tragedy claiming "LOOK! This is why we need Universal Health Care and better mental health care access!" is COMPLETELY undone by the FACT that these people HAD access to mental health care. In point of fact most school shooters throughout history HAD access to and were under authorized mental health care.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Useless blabbering

If you can't admit there's a problem with how we deal with mental health and illness in this country then there's no hope for you. Harris recieved the bare minimum of help and Klebold didn't even get that.

All you care about is railing against universal health care instead of accepting the reality.

 

[VanceMack]

If you can't admit there's a problem with how we deal with mental health and illness in this country then there's no hope for you. Harris recieved the bare minimum of help and Klebold didn't even get that.

All you care about is railing against universal health care instead of accepting the reality.

You keep wanting to try to add 2 + purple = truck.

The mental health care problem is a problem...and it is not in ANY WAY related to this or any of the other recent shootings. Trying to force a connection just makes you look goofy...or corrupt. You should stop.

 

[Visbek]

Democrats want more gun control based on the Las Vegas shooting. Even though they have no clue how the guy got the guns, whether he modified them or bought em that way, legally or illegally. Nothing. Yet they want more gun control. Tell me, just HOW in the world are they supposed to make informed decisions on what would have prevented this mass shooting without knowing a single damn detail?

We might base such policy decisions on, oh... the dozens of other mass shootings we've experienced in the US.

Is Sandy Hook old enough that we can now discuss it for possible mitigation options?

By the way, mass shootings in the US are a very different issue than everyday gun violence in the US which is a different issue than the role of firearms in suicide in the US. Different problems require different solutions. Since we're discussing a mass shooting, I'll focus on that.

Even in these early stages, there are some things we can already determine we should do, and lessons we should keep in mind.

• Do more research into the question of why the US has such a higher rate of mass shootings than other nations
• Consider whether bump fire systems and full auto conversions should be illegal
• Reconsider legalizing silencers/suppressors
• Recognize that for the most part, regulations on fully automatic machine guns do work (as evidenced by how tightly they are regulated, and how infrequently they are used in crimes)
• Reconsider the wisdom of large magazine sizes

This just proves that they don't actually care about curbing mass shootings or violence made with guns.

:roll:

It is perfectly normal after any sort of event like this to say "what can we do about it?" The idea that people don't care about an issue, because they are pushed by a recent event to address an issue, is flat-out nonsense.

I also have to say that it is obvious for many gun rights advocates that it is not just that "now is not the time." In their view, it is never the time to even consider any sort of gun control, or even doing things to improve enforcement. (We can also easily claim that it's just a tactic, that their goal is to stall until the public is distracted by another major news event.) It seems rather strange that the impulse to do something is proof of a cynical plot, while doing nothing whatsoever is... what, exactly? A sign of deep concern?

If they truly cared about reducing gun violence then they would have at least waited for more details to come out in order to try and make policy specific to this case.

Uh huh

So if I wait a week or two, and make similar recommendations to the above, what will you say then? Am I permanently tainted now? :roll:

Improved education system.

The LV shooter was highly educated.

Justice system reform.

The LV shooter was never arrested.

Universal Healthcare.

The LV shooter does not appear to have gone on a rage because of his health insurance.

While I appreciate out-of-the-box thinking, with this one you are really stretching.

Unsurprisingly, you aren't even considering something like banning bump fire systems, which almost certainly increased the lethality of the shooting in Las Vegas.

And none of those policies have a thing to do with gun control.

It is entirely plausible that we can enact policies that don't change ownership of guns, that reduce various types of gun violence.

At the same time, every time we have yet another mass shooting, taking gun control completely off the table makes less and less sense.

 

[Rucker61]

Unsurprisingly, you aren't even considering something like banning bump fire systems, which almost certainly increased the lethality of the shooting in Las Vegas.

Ban, rather than classify them as a Class III device? They are hardly more dangerous than a true fully automatic weapon, and those are just highly regulated. Would the new law grandfather all existing versions?

 

[Visbek]

Ban, rather than classify them as a Class III device?

Either one works for me.

They are hardly more dangerous than a true fully automatic weapon....

...except that you can use them to cheaply and easily fire full auto from a semi-automatic weapon.

Would the new law grandfather all existing versions?

No.

 

[Lovebug]

Democrats want more gun control based on the Las Vegas shooting. Even though they have no clue how the guy got the guns, whether he modified them or bought em that way, legally or illegally. Nothing. Yet they want more gun control. Tell me, just HOW in the world are they supposed to make informed decisions on what would have prevented this mass shooting without knowing a single damn detail? That's a rhetorical question of course. This just proves that they don't actually care about curbing mass shootings or violence made with guns. They just want to control the guns period. Because they know that guns are a threat to THEM. Because with gun ownership they are unable to force people into whatever society that they deem appropriate regardless if it is The Peoples Will or not.

If they truly cared about reducing gun violence then they would have at least waited for more details to come out in order to try and make policy specific to this case. If they truly cared about reducing gun violence then they would be enacting policies that would actually do that. Things like:

Improved education system.
Justice system reform. Meaning instead of punishing people they actually attempt to reform people. If someone is not reformed then leave them in prison. Period.
Universal Healthcare. (which includes mental health) Yeah, that means that the rich will probably have to pay more. Small price to pay to keep our society healthy and reduce violence committed...be it with a gun or otherwise. (not to mention they would benefit from healthier workers which means more productivity)

JUST those three things alone would reduce gun violence drastically if done right. There are some other areas which we could improve also...such as economically.

What do I mean by "done right"? Well for instance our educational system. Study the top 5-10 ranked educational systems in the entire world. Adapt it and enact it to our own society. We're obviously doing something wrong atm. Known fact that the more educated a populace, the less violence that there is.

And none of those policies have a thing to do with gun control.

If you truly want to reduce gun violence then THESE are the things that need to be looked at. Not inanimate objects that won't do crap without a human being behind them. IE: Human beings are the problem. Not guns. Fix the damn human beings and you'll fix the violence.

Mass tragedies are often used to further a cause. Just think the patriot act.(overly simplified of course) However, you are right, we have to dig a bit deeper than just calling for a one size fits all measure.
We forget what actually leads to gun violence, the trigger that makes people snap. We don't have the answer, but passing bills to stop sane people from exercising their right to legally purchase weapons is a bandage at best.
What makes killers like this man snap, what creates the overall dissatisfaction, frustration, hopelessness and despair that makes them pull the trigger? Could it be, in part, that we are being told daily how miserable we are, how unjust our country is, how we deserve better, that we aren't treated as equals, that we should have what everyone has. We are preaching social injustice, hating on each other and insulting each other seems to be more and more common.
Why are we blaming guns for these tragedies?

 

[Kal'Stang]

(breathe)

Mental health awareness has absolutely zero to do with a lack of available mental health care and universal health care as cited by the individual as a component of the problem and solution.

Zero.

The safety belt mechanism on 2014 Jeeps underwent a recall. That also has nothing to do with these shootings or a potential 'solution'.

Realizing all this...perhaps its YOU that is talking out of your ass when you decided to jump in on a conversation that apparently you are ill prepared to address.

I get it, you don't want universal healthcare. But plain fact of the matter is that we need it. Whether you wish to acknowledge that or not. We need it because our mental health facilities are woefully inadequate. We need it because getting help for those that need it is harder than a flea moving a tank. Adam Lanza's mother tried to get him committed because she was afraid that he was a danger. The system failed in getting him committed. We need it because having such may make it to where more people are willing to go see doctors and they could possibly be able to catch those that need help...whether they realize they need the help or not.

Would it have stopped THIS mass shooting? I don't know. No one knows why this guy did what he did. From what I have heard though he passed background checks 30 times though. So obviously that sure as hell didn't stop him.

Even my suggestions won't stop all crime or mass shootings. Anyone would be a fool to think that they can completely stop crime. But I'd bet $1000 that my suggestions WOULD decrease crime and mass shootings drastically if they were actually implemented and done correctly. IE: not being used for self serving wants like money and power.

 

[VanceMack]

I get it, you don't want universal healthcare. But plain fact of the matter is that we need it. Whether you wish to acknowledge that or not. We need it because our mental health facilities are woefully inadequate. We need it because getting help for those that need it is harder than a flea moving a tank. Adam Lanza's mother tried to get him committed because she was afraid that he was a danger. The system failed in getting him committed. We need it because having such may make it to where more people are willing to go see doctors and they could possibly be able to catch those that need help...whether they realize they need the help or not.

Would it have stopped THIS mass shooting? I don't know. No one knows why this guy did what he did. From what I have heard though he passed background checks 30 times though. So obviously that sure as hell didn't stop him.

Even my suggestions won't stop all crime or mass shootings. Anyone would be a fool to think that they can completely stop crime. But I'd bet $1000 that my suggestions WOULD decrease crime and mass shootings drastically if they were actually implemented and done correctly. IE: not being used for self serving wants like money and power.

My position on Universal Health Care is as irrelevant to the topic as the question of adequate mental health care as related to mass shootings. THATS the point. There is no indication on ANY of these shootings that there has been a shortage or lack of availability to mental healthcare. Why then does it keep coming up in relation to the shooting incidents?

 

[Lursa]

On the local news they are saying that 7 in 10 gun deaths in the US are suicides. I dont have a source for that.

But if that's the case...IMO the attention needs to be on mental health, not keeping guns away from law-abiding people who choose them for self-protection or recreation. For the most part, suicides are not dangerous to the general public...so why punish the public with greater restrictions?

 

[Visbek]

On the local news they are saying that 7 in 10 gun deaths in the US are suicides. I dont have a source for that.

It's 60%, and based on government stats.

IMO the attention needs to be on mental health, not keeping guns away from law-abiding people who choose them for self-protection or recreation. For the most part, suicides are not dangerous to the general public...so why punish the public with greater restrictions?

Taking steps to reduce suicides with firearms does not address the separate issues of everyday firearm violence, or the rarer mass shootings. These are all separate issues, which require distinct solutions.

We should note that there are nearly 11,000 firearm homicides per year. That's still over 2/3 of all homicides in a typical year, and still qualifies as a major issue we should continue to work on.

 

[Lursa]

It's 60%, and based on government stats.



Taking steps to reduce suicides with firearms does not address the separate issues of everyday firearm violence, or the rarer mass shootings. These are all separate issues, which require distinct solutions.

We should note that there are nearly 11,000 firearm homicides per year. That's still over 2/3 of all homicides in a typical year, and still qualifies as a major issue we should continue to work on.

I agree that any lowering of those numbers would be great.

But most of those are gang-related or in socio-economically challenged urban areas...very concentrated. So not much of a risk to the majority of Americans. Please understand that I am NOT minimizing the danger to those who have no choice but to live in such areas. But the myriad of issues harming those areas are being addressed by a variety of programs, not just those regarding guns.

In perspective then, if say, 2/3 of those homicides are in those areas, that leaves about 4,000 throughout the rest of the country. Again, I am not minimizing homicides or any deaths. But the demand for change is certainly focused more on gun deaths than vehicular deaths...which are about 45,000/year.

People are by far more at risk every single day when they get a car than they are from a gun. Shock value and outrage (even as it is deserved at these acts) should not be the driving force behind restricting a Constitutional right IMO.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Too much here to address in one post so will just pick the highlights.

By the way, mass shootings in the US are a very different issue than everyday gun violence in the US which is a different issue than the role of firearms in suicide in the US. Different problems require different solutions. Since we're discussing a mass shooting, I'll focus on that.

Yes, mass shooting causes are different than that of regular crime. But the solutions aren't all that different. The minutia is what would be different in the solution. Same basic concepts though. Mass shootings are the product of two things. Mental health problems and political statements. Both of which can be addressed by the suggestions that I have made in this thread.

• Do more research into the question of why the US has such a higher rate of mass shootings than other nations

One difference is education systems. Hence my suggestion of educational reform. Other things would more than likely not be of use.

• Consider whether bump fire systems and full auto conversions should be illegal
• Reconsider legalizing silencers/suppressors
• Recognize that for the most part, regulations on fully automatic machine guns do work (as evidenced by how tightly they are regulated, and how infrequently they are used in crimes)
• Reconsider the wisdom of large magazine sizes

See, here you are, focusing on inanimate objects. Those are NOT going to work. Not in the US. Not with our culture. Not with how large the US is.

And just so you know, fully automatic weapons not being used has nothing to do with the law regulating them so tightly. Even before they became so tightly regulated full auto's were RARELY used in any type of crime. Even before the national firearms act of 1934.

It is perfectly normal after any sort of event like this to say "what can we do about it?"

Except that is not what has happened. Every single time a mass shooting happens the same laws are pushed regardless of anything that happened in the mass shooting. They're not asking "what can we do about it", they're demanding the same old gun control laws be passed. If they were "asking" that then they would be asking what the mass shooter did and what laws would have prevented the mass shooting. They would not be trotting out the same laws.

I also .....

Because guns are not the problem. People are the problem. Fix the people. Fix the problem. Not one single gun control law has to be passed to accomplish this.

Uh huh

So if I wait a week or two, and make similar recommendations to the above, what will you say then? Am I permanently tainted now? :roll:

Like I said, focusing on inanimate objects will not solve the problem. Fix the people. Fix the problem.

The LV shooter was highly educated.

Unsurprisingly, you aren't even considering something like banning bump fire systems, which almost certainly increased the lethality of the shooting in Las Vegas.

And what of other things that I have suggested? Lovebug stated perfectly in post 35 what I was trying to get across in another post. Think that would help? We don't know why this shooter did what he did. But I would bet between everything I have suggested it may have prevented him from doing what he did. If not, well, no system is perfect. I've already stated that we cannot stop crime 100%. The best we can do is reduce the chances of it happening. But that is not an easy fix. And it certainly is not a fix that involves the blaming of an inanimate object.

BTW: what bumpfire systems accomplish can be done without them with no money or system in place. You can literally do the same thing that those systems do just by letting the recoil work for you. The accuracy is crap either way.

It is entirely plausible that we can enact policies that don't change ownership of guns, that reduce various types of gun violence.

At the same time, every time we have yet another mass shooting, taking gun control completely off the table makes less and less sense.

No, it doesn't make less sense. It makes less EMOTIONAL sense. Everytime a mass shooting happens people get emotional. The more that happens the more emotional they get each time it happens. The problems will still be the same. And those problems have absolutely nothing to do with guns.

 

[Kal'Stang]

My position on Universal Health Care is as irrelevant to the topic as the question of adequate mental health care as related to mass shootings. THATS the point. There is no indication on ANY of these shootings that there has been a shortage or lack of availability to mental healthcare. Why then does it keep coming up in relation to the shooting incidents?

Adam Lanza's mother tried to get her son committed. Yet failed to do so even though she tried.

And my solutions are not just about mass shootings. It is also about crime in general and suicides. Which most definitely involves mental health solutions needing to be talked about.

 

[Visbek]

I agree that any lowering of those numbers would be great.

But most of those are gang-related or in socio-economically challenged urban areas...very concentrated.

Just a reminder: While crime is concentrated in specific areas, the role of gangs is vastly exaggerated. In about half of all homicides, the killer knows the victim -- they are a spouse, relative or friend.

In perspective then, if say, 2/3 of those homicides are in those areas, that leaves about 4,000 throughout the rest of the country. Again, I am not minimizing homicides or any deaths. But the demand for change is certainly focused more on gun deaths than vehicular deaths...which are about 45,000/year.

Actually it's down a bit -- 32,000 vehicle deaths per year now.

We should note that we already do a great deal to minimize vehicular deaths, via government regulation.

We make people pass tests to qualify for driving a car; we mandate safety standards in design; we mandate safety belts and safety belt usage; we set limits on speed; we don't allow passengers in truck beds; we have strict laws to prevent people from driving while intoxicated; we regulate what side of the road you can drive on, where the steering wheel is placed, and more.

As a result, most of the crashes now are due to people ignoring those laws. Distracted driving, speeding, drunk driving, reckless driving and so forth top the list, because we've put considerable effort into mitigating as many design defects as possible. This would be the equivalent of doing everything we possibly can to ensure that people can't accidentally shoot themselves, that they can't get fully automatic weapons and high-cap mags, that we've mandated smart guns and safety locks and so forth.

We won't get rid of all firearm deaths, but I do believe we can reduce the numbers, without resorting to extreme (strawman) measures like "seizing all guns from everyone everywhere."

People are by far more at risk every single day when they get a car than they are from a gun.

...yes, but that's because 84% of Americans spend 2+ hours per day behind the wheel of a car, and they are pretty much everywhere. In contrast, far less Americans own guns (around 25% or so), and most of them don't spend 2+ hours a day firing them.

 

[Lursa]

We should note that we already do a great deal to minimize vehicular deaths, via government regulation.

We make people pass tests to qualify for driving a car; we mandate safety standards in design; we mandate safety belts and safety belt usage; we set limits on speed; we don't allow passengers in truck beds; we have strict laws to prevent people from driving while intoxicated; we regulate what side of the road you can drive on, where the steering wheel is placed, and more.

As a result, most of the crashes now are due to people ignoring those laws. Distracted driving, speeding, drunk driving, reckless driving and so forth top the list, because we've put considerable effort into mitigating as many design defects as possible. This would be the equivalent of doing everything we possibly can to ensure that people can't accidentally shoot themselves, that they can't get fully automatic weapons and high-cap mags, that we've mandated smart guns and safety locks and so forth.

And yet, the risks of riding in cars are very very great. The death rates, the risks, still high. Esp. compared with guns. Even with all the regulations and licensing. (It's not possible to make everything safe. I think it's important for Americans to realize what they willingly accept every day (smart or not) and compare it to the over-riding fear of many of their law-abiding gun-owning peers.)

...yes, but that's because 84% of Americans spend 2+ hours per day behind the wheel of a car, and they are pretty much everywhere. In contrast, far less Americans own guns (around 25% or so), and most of them don't spend 2+ hours a day firing them.

You're kind of continuing the with the same point I was making. Yes.

 

[TurtleDude]

And yet, the risks of riding in cars is very very great. The death rates, the risks, still high. Esp. compared with guns. Even with all the regulations and licensing. (It's not possible to make everything safe. I think it's important for Americans to realize what they willingly accept every day (smart or not) and compare it to the over-riding fear of many of their law-abiding gun-owning peers.)




You're kind of continuing the with the same point I was making. Yes.

the vast majority of deaths involving cars is due to a failure to control the vehicle (s) i.e. a lack of skill

the vast majority of deaths involving guns is not due to a lack of skill in operating the weapon or negligence

so the stupid attempts to suggest the training we require of drivers be applied to cars is just plain moronic

 

[Lursa]

Adam Lanza's mother tried to get her son committed. Yet failed to do so even though she tried.

And my solutions are not just about mass shootings. It is also about crime in general and suicides. Which most definitely involves mental health solutions needing to be talked about.

The family of the Cafe Racer shooter (killed 5 or 6 here in Seattle) also tried to get him committed. The county had no power to do so, there were no laws to enable them to do so.

***If you (anyone) would like to know about a 'good' outcome from one of these sick shootings, here is one: after this shooting, the family and the community and the county DID propose and get passed legislation that made it easier for family to get assistance in involuntarily committing mentally ill members.***

 

[Lursa]

the vast majority of deaths involving cars is due to a failure to control the vehicle (s) i.e. a lack of skill

the vast majority of deaths involving guns is not due to a lack of skill in operating the weapon or negligence

so the stupid attempts to suggest the training we require of drivers be applied to cars is just plain moronic

Not particularly constructive. But ok. The underlying information is useful.

Altho I also am sometimes pushed to annoyance by constant repetition, I try to not become contentious, as it just shuts people down. (I know I am not always successful, but it's a goal)

 

[Kal'Stang]

The family of the Cafe Racer shooter (killed 5 or 6 here in Seattle) also tried to get him committed. The county had no power to do so, there were no laws to enable them to do so.

***If you (anyone) would like to know about a 'good' outcome from one of these sick shootings, here is one: after this shooting, the family and the community and the county DID propose and get passed legislation that made it easier for family to get assistance in involuntarily committing mentally ill members.***

That is the kind of legislation I can get behind. Thank you for relaying it.

 

[TurtleDude]

Not particularly constructive. But ok. The underlying information is useful.

its actually very constructive to point out that the stupid demands of more "training" will change things. if most gun deaths came from careless handling, then perhaps the calls for more training would make sense.

 

[TurtleDude]

That is the kind of legislation I can get behind. Thank you for relaying it.

I don't have a problem like that as long as the person being committed

1) has a right to counsel and is supplied counsel since his or her freedom is at stake

2) has a right to a speedy hearing

3) has substantial civil damages available if his or her rights are abused.