Thread: AR-15 rifles
View Single Post
  #4   Report Post  
posted to rec.boats
Mr. Luddite[_4_] Mr. Luddite[_4_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Aug 2017
Posts: 4,961
Default AR-15 rifles

On 2/21/2018 6:27 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/21/18 5:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:

Before the 2nd Amendment advocates jump all over me for this, please
hear me out and give it consideration.

I think AR-15 and other "military like" rifles that resemble assault
rifles should be allowed but only at licensed shooting ranges.Â* They
cannot be removed from the range.Â* Owners should be required to store
the rifles *at* the range when not using them.

I realize other types of guns, cars, trucks, knives, etc. can also be
used in these mass killings in schools but for some reason the people
that do this seem to have a fascination with military type assault
weapons.

It's not a 2nd Amendment thing.Â* It's a mental attitude and perception
thing and it needs to be addressed.Â* As a country, we need to do
something, not just talk about it like a bunch of politicians.


And contrary to Harry's claims,Â* mental health professionals need to
pay closer attention to their patients and not hesitate to report
anyone who
even remotely appears to be a potential threat.Â* The mental health
people at the out-patient facility who treated Cruz reported him to be
of "no danger to himself or others."Â*Â* He then went out with an AR-15
and killed 17 people, most of them children.






The mental health treatment issues are far more complex than "reporting"
someone who might pose a danger.



Yes Harry. You've said that before. Meanwhile, 17 people were killed a
week ago in a high school after mental health professionals determined
Cruz was not a "danger".

You are sounding like those you complain about. "Nothing can be done".

You've cited the laws in most states (including mine) as to when and how
a "professional" can take action to prevent a potential tragedy. I am
very aware of those laws. I engaged in a heated debate with a mental
health professional a few years ago regarding a person who demonstrated
that he was both a danger to himself and to others, not just in my
opinion but in the opinion of the police who strongly recommended that
he be mentally evaluated. I was trying to get him some help because he
had refused to get any voluntarily for a number of years. Without going
through all the details, the psychotherapist who interviewed him ended
up agreeing with me that the person *was* a potential danger both to
himself and to others but "nothing could be done" as far as getting
state help for him until he actually harmed himself or others.

Stupid.