On 8/31/15 11:06 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 10:22:25 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/31/15 9:47 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 06:40:11 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:



How else are you going to get mental heath issues into the instant
check, or even a full "form 4" level background check?

Ask your wife


Many who provide treatment are duty and legally bound to inform
authorities if they become aware of a child in a household who is being
abused or whose life is in danger. Further, if spousal domestic violence
is an issue, someone accused of it may be forced to turn in or otherwise
dispose his firearms at least until the case is resolved, and perhaps
after that.

All that is needed is an expansion of "hold harmless" provisions for
those in the professions who report people they are treating who should
not be allowed to have possession of firearms, and turn in or pickup
procedures can follow, along with notations for the background check
mechanisms.

Certainly not foolproof, but a start, and more than the "libertarian"
approach of doing nothing and proclaiming nothing can be done.


So do it,
No argument from me but I bet people like your wife would disagree.
If someone knew that their problems would be reported to the police,
they would not seek help.


Therapists generally are not afraid to call the authorities when a child
is at risk or when a client is physically threatening someone else with
or without the involvement of firearms. You're in no position to know
what motivates people to seek help or what they tell their therapists or
what their therapists tell them when they disclose dangerous, illegal
acts they've committed or are threatening to commit.


This is all moot anyway in the case of this last guy since there are
no reports of him being treated by anyone who would have reported him
if they could.
There is actually a deafening silence from the media about much of
anything about the shooter. It is all about the gun, even though
nobody has explained exactly what law would have stopped him from
getting one., short of a total ban.



There is no obligation on the part of a therapist to discuss a patient
or a former patient with "the media." In fact, therapists are not
supposed to discuss their patients or the problems of their patients
with anyone, unless specific written permission is given.

Unless someone is willing to disclose that information publicly, how
would you know? The shooter in question was reasonably employed in the
past, and at least one of his former employers has stated he was
obstreperous. If he sought and received counseling, it probably was with
a private therapist, who probably would not say anything.

You must watch different news than I do...the shooting and what was
known about the shooter then was all over the news here for days.


I agree I am not glued to the news. I have pretty much stopped
watching it but all I have seen from CNN is people talking about more
gun control without actually saying what new law would have prevented
this and I have not heard anything about him seeking mental health
support

If you want the doctors to report anything they hear to the cops, that
is fine with me but I bet they won't do it. If you are right about the
obligation, why wasn't any of the other shooters been reported?


How would you know if "any" or how many shooters or potential shooters
were reported to the proper authorities before or, sadly, after they
committed their murders?

Obviously, some were not reported. Do you have information on those who
were reported? How many of those are there? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands?
No, I didn't think you knew.

On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 11:28:07 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/31/15 11:06 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 10:22:25 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/31/15 9:47 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 06:40:11 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:



How else are you going to get mental heath issues into the instant
check, or even a full "form 4" level background check?

Ask your wife


Many who provide treatment are duty and legally bound to inform
authorities if they become aware of a child in a household who is being
abused or whose life is in danger. Further, if spousal domestic violence
is an issue, someone accused of it may be forced to turn in or otherwise
dispose his firearms at least until the case is resolved, and perhaps
after that.

All that is needed is an expansion of "hold harmless" provisions for
those in the professions who report people they are treating who should
not be allowed to have possession of firearms, and turn in or pickup
procedures can follow, along with notations for the background check
mechanisms.

Certainly not foolproof, but a start, and more than the "libertarian"
approach of doing nothing and proclaiming nothing can be done.


So do it,
No argument from me but I bet people like your wife would disagree.
If someone knew that their problems would be reported to the police,
they would not seek help.


Therapists generally are not afraid to call the authorities when a child
is at risk or when a client is physically threatening someone else with
or without the involvement of firearms. You're in no position to know
what motivates people to seek help or what they tell their therapists or
what their therapists tell them when they disclose dangerous, illegal
acts they've committed or are threatening to commit.


This is all moot anyway in the case of this last guy since there are
no reports of him being treated by anyone who would have reported him
if they could.
There is actually a deafening silence from the media about much of
anything about the shooter. It is all about the gun, even though
nobody has explained exactly what law would have stopped him from
getting one., short of a total ban.



There is no obligation on the part of a therapist to discuss a patient
or a former patient with "the media." In fact, therapists are not
supposed to discuss their patients or the problems of their patients
with anyone, unless specific written permission is given.

Unless someone is willing to disclose that information publicly, how
would you know? The shooter in question was reasonably employed in the
past, and at least one of his former employers has stated he was
obstreperous. If he sought and received counseling, it probably was with
a private therapist, who probably would not say anything.

You must watch different news than I do...the shooting and what was
known about the shooter then was all over the news here for days.


I agree I am not glued to the news. I have pretty much stopped
watching it but all I have seen from CNN is people talking about more
gun control without actually saying what new law would have prevented
this and I have not heard anything about him seeking mental health
support

If you want the doctors to report anything they hear to the cops, that
is fine with me but I bet they won't do it. If you are right about the
obligation, why wasn't any of the other shooters been reported?


How would you know if "any" or how many shooters or potential shooters
were reported to the proper authorities before or, sadly, after they
committed their murders?

Obviously, some were not reported. Do you have information on those who
were reported? How many of those are there? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands?
No, I didn't think you knew.



So you are saying the system works? I am confused.

The only thing that is clear is that virtually every one of these mass
shooters had mental problems and they were not reported to the police
in any manner that would have had their name tagged in the instant
check system.
Most also got their guns into the family legally, from a dealer and
passed the background check.

What law do you want to see?

I ask the same of JPS and BAO.

Give me the outline of a law that would stop these shootings.

On 8/31/15 11:52 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 11:28:07 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/31/15 11:06 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 10:22:25 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/31/15 9:47 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 06:40:11 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:



How else are you going to get mental heath issues into the instant
check, or even a full "form 4" level background check?

Ask your wife


Many who provide treatment are duty and legally bound to inform
authorities if they become aware of a child in a household who is being
abused or whose life is in danger. Further, if spousal domestic violence
is an issue, someone accused of it may be forced to turn in or otherwise
dispose his firearms at least until the case is resolved, and perhaps
after that.

All that is needed is an expansion of "hold harmless" provisions for
those in the professions who report people they are treating who should
not be allowed to have possession of firearms, and turn in or pickup
procedures can follow, along with notations for the background check
mechanisms.

Certainly not foolproof, but a start, and more than the "libertarian"
approach of doing nothing and proclaiming nothing can be done.


So do it,
No argument from me but I bet people like your wife would disagree.
If someone knew that their problems would be reported to the police,
they would not seek help.


Therapists generally are not afraid to call the authorities when a child
is at risk or when a client is physically threatening someone else with
or without the involvement of firearms. You're in no position to know
what motivates people to seek help or what they tell their therapists or
what their therapists tell them when they disclose dangerous, illegal
acts they've committed or are threatening to commit.


This is all moot anyway in the case of this last guy since there are
no reports of him being treated by anyone who would have reported him
if they could.
There is actually a deafening silence from the media about much of
anything about the shooter. It is all about the gun, even though
nobody has explained exactly what law would have stopped him from
getting one., short of a total ban.



There is no obligation on the part of a therapist to discuss a patient
or a former patient with "the media." In fact, therapists are not
supposed to discuss their patients or the problems of their patients
with anyone, unless specific written permission is given.

Unless someone is willing to disclose that information publicly, how
would you know? The shooter in question was reasonably employed in the
past, and at least one of his former employers has stated he was
obstreperous. If he sought and received counseling, it probably was with
a private therapist, who probably would not say anything.

You must watch different news than I do...the shooting and what was
known about the shooter then was all over the news here for days.


I agree I am not glued to the news. I have pretty much stopped
watching it but all I have seen from CNN is people talking about more
gun control without actually saying what new law would have prevented
this and I have not heard anything about him seeking mental health
support

If you want the doctors to report anything they hear to the cops, that
is fine with me but I bet they won't do it. If you are right about the
obligation, why wasn't any of the other shooters been reported?


How would you know if "any" or how many shooters or potential shooters
were reported to the proper authorities before or, sadly, after they
committed their murders?

Obviously, some were not reported. Do you have information on those who
were reported? How many of those are there? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands?
No, I didn't think you knew.



So you are saying the system works? I am confused.

The only thing that is clear is that virtually every one of these mass
shooters had mental problems and they were not reported to the police
in any manner that would have had their name tagged in the instant
check system.
Most also got their guns into the family legally, from a dealer and
passed the background check.

What law do you want to see?

I ask the same of JPS and BAO.

Give me the outline of a law that would stop these shootings.





Without drastic measures, you cannot "stop" these sorts of shootings in
this country. You can, however, cut down on the number of shootings.

Gizmodo had this interesting recap:

The story of Australia, which had 13 mass shootings in the 18-year
period from 1979 to 1996 but *none* in the succeeding 19 years, is worth
examining.

The turning point was the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania, in
which a gunman killed 35 individuals using semiautomatic weapons.

In the wake of the massacre, the conservative federal government
succeeded in implementing tough new gun control laws throughout the
country. A large array of weapons were banned – including the Glock
semiautomatic handgun used in the Charleston shootings. The government
also imposed a mandatory gun buy back that substantially reduced gun
possession in Australia.

The effect was that both gun suicides and homicides (as well as total
suicides and homicides) fell. In addition, the 1996 legislation made it
a crime to use firearms in self-defense.

When I mention this to disbelieving NRA supporters they insist that
crime must now be rampant in Australia. In fact, the Australian murder
rate has fallen to close one per 100,000 while the US rate, thankfully
lower than in the early 1990s, is still roughly at 4.5 per 100,000 –
over four times as high. Moreover, robberies in Australia occur at only
about half the rate of the US (58 in Australia versus 113.1 per 100,000
in the US in 2012).

http://tinyurl.com/nojlkw6


I always get a giggle when I read about the NRA'ers and suchlike who
think their firearms are going to be what it takes to defend themselves
from a federal government that has no interest in them or their popguns.
Even funnier are the yahoos here who think there is little that is more
important than their personal firearms.

On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 12:05:32 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/31/15 11:52 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 11:28:07 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/31/15 11:06 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 10:22:25 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/31/15 9:47 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 06:40:11 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:



How else are you going to get mental heath issues into the instant
check, or even a full "form 4" level background check?

Ask your wife


Many who provide treatment are duty and legally bound to inform
authorities if they become aware of a child in a household who is being
abused or whose life is in danger. Further, if spousal domestic violence
is an issue, someone accused of it may be forced to turn in or otherwise
dispose his firearms at least until the case is resolved, and perhaps
after that.

All that is needed is an expansion of "hold harmless" provisions for
those in the professions who report people they are treating who should
not be allowed to have possession of firearms, and turn in or pickup
procedures can follow, along with notations for the background check
mechanisms.

Certainly not foolproof, but a start, and more than the "libertarian"
approach of doing nothing and proclaiming nothing can be done.


So do it,
No argument from me but I bet people like your wife would disagree.
If someone knew that their problems would be reported to the police,
they would not seek help.


Therapists generally are not afraid to call the authorities when a child
is at risk or when a client is physically threatening someone else with
or without the involvement of firearms. You're in no position to know
what motivates people to seek help or what they tell their therapists or
what their therapists tell them when they disclose dangerous, illegal
acts they've committed or are threatening to commit.


This is all moot anyway in the case of this last guy since there are
no reports of him being treated by anyone who would have reported him
if they could.
There is actually a deafening silence from the media about much of
anything about the shooter. It is all about the gun, even though
nobody has explained exactly what law would have stopped him from
getting one., short of a total ban.



There is no obligation on the part of a therapist to discuss a patient
or a former patient with "the media." In fact, therapists are not
supposed to discuss their patients or the problems of their patients
with anyone, unless specific written permission is given.

Unless someone is willing to disclose that information publicly, how
would you know? The shooter in question was reasonably employed in the
past, and at least one of his former employers has stated he was
obstreperous. If he sought and received counseling, it probably was with
a private therapist, who probably would not say anything.

You must watch different news than I do...the shooting and what was
known about the shooter then was all over the news here for days.


I agree I am not glued to the news. I have pretty much stopped
watching it but all I have seen from CNN is people talking about more
gun control without actually saying what new law would have prevented
this and I have not heard anything about him seeking mental health
support

If you want the doctors to report anything they hear to the cops, that
is fine with me but I bet they won't do it. If you are right about the
obligation, why wasn't any of the other shooters been reported?


How would you know if "any" or how many shooters or potential shooters
were reported to the proper authorities before or, sadly, after they
committed their murders?

Obviously, some were not reported. Do you have information on those who
were reported? How many of those are there? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands?
No, I didn't think you knew.



So you are saying the system works? I am confused.

The only thing that is clear is that virtually every one of these mass
shooters had mental problems and they were not reported to the police
in any manner that would have had their name tagged in the instant
check system.
Most also got their guns into the family legally, from a dealer and
passed the background check.

What law do you want to see?

I ask the same of JPS and BAO.

Give me the outline of a law that would stop these shootings.





Without drastic measures, you cannot "stop" these sorts of shootings in
this country. You can, however, cut down on the number of shootings.

Gizmodo had this interesting recap:

The story of Australia, which had 13 mass shootings in the 18-year
period from 1979 to 1996 but *none* in the succeeding 19 years, is worth
examining.

The turning point was the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania, in
which a gunman killed 35 individuals using semiautomatic weapons.

In the wake of the massacre, the conservative federal government
succeeded in implementing tough new gun control laws throughout the
country. A large array of weapons were banned – including the Glock
semiautomatic handgun used in the Charleston shootings. The government
also imposed a mandatory gun buy back that substantially reduced gun
possession in Australia.

The effect was that both gun suicides and homicides (as well as total
suicides and homicides) fell. In addition, the 1996 legislation made it
a crime to use firearms in self-defense.

When I mention this to disbelieving NRA supporters they insist that
crime must now be rampant in Australia. In fact, the Australian murder
rate has fallen to close one per 100,000 while the US rate, thankfully
lower than in the early 1990s, is still roughly at 4.5 per 100,000 –
over four times as high. Moreover, robberies in Australia occur at only
about half the rate of the US (58 in Australia versus 113.1 per 100,000
in the US in 2012).

http://tinyurl.com/nojlkw6

If you really want the government to take the guns, you go first. Let
them buy yours for $50 each.


Australia did not really change the slope of the murder rate with the
gun ban. It was going down before and the rate stayed pretty constant
afterwards.
I have posted the data several times.



I always get a giggle when I read about the NRA'ers and suchlike who
think their firearms are going to be what it takes to defend themselves
from a federal government that has no interest in them or their popguns.
Even funnier are the yahoos here who think there is little that is more
important than their personal firearms.

The government firepower is really not an issue here unless you think
they would bring in the B-52s and carpet bomb our cities to put down
an insurrection.

On 8/31/15 1:30 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 12:05:32 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/31/15 11:52 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 11:28:07 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/31/15 11:06 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 10:22:25 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/31/15 9:47 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 06:40:11 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:



How else are you going to get mental heath issues into the instant
check, or even a full "form 4" level background check?

Ask your wife


Many who provide treatment are duty and legally bound to inform
authorities if they become aware of a child in a household who is being
abused or whose life is in danger. Further, if spousal domestic violence
is an issue, someone accused of it may be forced to turn in or otherwise
dispose his firearms at least until the case is resolved, and perhaps
after that.

All that is needed is an expansion of "hold harmless" provisions for
those in the professions who report people they are treating who should
not be allowed to have possession of firearms, and turn in or pickup
procedures can follow, along with notations for the background check
mechanisms.

Certainly not foolproof, but a start, and more than the "libertarian"
approach of doing nothing and proclaiming nothing can be done.


So do it,
No argument from me but I bet people like your wife would disagree.
If someone knew that their problems would be reported to the police,
they would not seek help.


Therapists generally are not afraid to call the authorities when a child
is at risk or when a client is physically threatening someone else with
or without the involvement of firearms. You're in no position to know
what motivates people to seek help or what they tell their therapists or
what their therapists tell them when they disclose dangerous, illegal
acts they've committed or are threatening to commit.


This is all moot anyway in the case of this last guy since there are
no reports of him being treated by anyone who would have reported him
if they could.
There is actually a deafening silence from the media about much of
anything about the shooter. It is all about the gun, even though
nobody has explained exactly what law would have stopped him from
getting one., short of a total ban.



There is no obligation on the part of a therapist to discuss a patient
or a former patient with "the media." In fact, therapists are not
supposed to discuss their patients or the problems of their patients
with anyone, unless specific written permission is given.

Unless someone is willing to disclose that information publicly, how
would you know? The shooter in question was reasonably employed in the
past, and at least one of his former employers has stated he was
obstreperous. If he sought and received counseling, it probably was with
a private therapist, who probably would not say anything.

You must watch different news than I do...the shooting and what was
known about the shooter then was all over the news here for days.


I agree I am not glued to the news. I have pretty much stopped
watching it but all I have seen from CNN is people talking about more
gun control without actually saying what new law would have prevented
this and I have not heard anything about him seeking mental health
support

If you want the doctors to report anything they hear to the cops, that
is fine with me but I bet they won't do it. If you are right about the
obligation, why wasn't any of the other shooters been reported?


How would you know if "any" or how many shooters or potential shooters
were reported to the proper authorities before or, sadly, after they
committed their murders?

Obviously, some were not reported. Do you have information on those who
were reported? How many of those are there? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands?
No, I didn't think you knew.



So you are saying the system works? I am confused.

The only thing that is clear is that virtually every one of these mass
shooters had mental problems and they were not reported to the police
in any manner that would have had their name tagged in the instant
check system.
Most also got their guns into the family legally, from a dealer and
passed the background check.

What law do you want to see?

I ask the same of JPS and BAO.

Give me the outline of a law that would stop these shootings.





Without drastic measures, you cannot "stop" these sorts of shootings in
this country. You can, however, cut down on the number of shootings.

Gizmodo had this interesting recap:

The story of Australia, which had 13 mass shootings in the 18-year
period from 1979 to 1996 but *none* in the succeeding 19 years, is worth
examining.

The turning point was the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania, in
which a gunman killed 35 individuals using semiautomatic weapons.

In the wake of the massacre, the conservative federal government
succeeded in implementing tough new gun control laws throughout the
country. A large array of weapons were banned – including the Glock
semiautomatic handgun used in the Charleston shootings. The government
also imposed a mandatory gun buy back that substantially reduced gun
possession in Australia.

The effect was that both gun suicides and homicides (as well as total
suicides and homicides) fell. In addition, the 1996 legislation made it
a crime to use firearms in self-defense.

When I mention this to disbelieving NRA supporters they insist that
crime must now be rampant in Australia. In fact, the Australian murder
rate has fallen to close one per 100,000 while the US rate, thankfully
lower than in the early 1990s, is still roughly at 4.5 per 100,000 –
over four times as high. Moreover, robberies in Australia occur at only
about half the rate of the US (58 in Australia versus 113.1 per 100,000
in the US in 2012).

http://tinyurl.com/nojlkw6

If you really want the government to take the guns, you go first. Let
them buy yours for $50 each.


Australia did not really change the slope of the murder rate with the
gun ban. It was going down before and the rate stayed pretty constant
afterwards.
I have posted the data several times.



I always get a giggle when I read about the NRA'ers and suchlike who
think their firearms are going to be what it takes to defend themselves
from a federal government that has no interest in them or their popguns.
Even funnier are the yahoos here who think there is little that is more
important than their personal firearms.

The government firepower is really not an issue here unless you think
they would bring in the B-52s and carpet bomb our cities to put down
an insurrection.




The murder rate in Australia is about 1 per 100,000, while it is more
than four times that in the United States. Are you claiming the lower
rate down under has nothing to do with that country's tougher gun
control laws?

On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:55:58 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 8/31/15 1:30 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 12:05:32 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/31/15 11:52 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 11:28:07 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/31/15 11:06 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 10:22:25 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/31/15 9:47 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 06:40:11 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:



How else are you going to get mental heath issues into the instant
check, or even a full "form 4" level background check?

Ask your wife


Many who provide treatment are duty and legally bound to inform
authorities if they become aware of a child in a household who is being
abused or whose life is in danger. Further, if spousal domestic violence
is an issue, someone accused of it may be forced to turn in or otherwise
dispose his firearms at least until the case is resolved, and perhaps
after that.

All that is needed is an expansion of "hold harmless" provisions for
those in the professions who report people they are treating who should
not be allowed to have possession of firearms, and turn in or pickup
procedures can follow, along with notations for the background check
mechanisms.

Certainly not foolproof, but a start, and more than the "libertarian"
approach of doing nothing and proclaiming nothing can be done.


So do it,
No argument from me but I bet people like your wife would disagree.
If someone knew that their problems would be reported to the police,
they would not seek help.


Therapists generally are not afraid to call the authorities when a child
is at risk or when a client is physically threatening someone else with
or without the involvement of firearms. You're in no position to know
what motivates people to seek help or what they tell their therapists or
what their therapists tell them when they disclose dangerous, illegal
acts they've committed or are threatening to commit.


This is all moot anyway in the case of this last guy since there are
no reports of him being treated by anyone who would have reported him
if they could.
There is actually a deafening silence from the media about much of
anything about the shooter. It is all about the gun, even though
nobody has explained exactly what law would have stopped him from
getting one., short of a total ban.



There is no obligation on the part of a therapist to discuss a patient
or a former patient with "the media." In fact, therapists are not
supposed to discuss their patients or the problems of their patients
with anyone, unless specific written permission is given.

Unless someone is willing to disclose that information publicly, how
would you know? The shooter in question was reasonably employed in the
past, and at least one of his former employers has stated he was
obstreperous. If he sought and received counseling, it probably was with
a private therapist, who probably would not say anything.

You must watch different news than I do...the shooting and what was
known about the shooter then was all over the news here for days.


I agree I am not glued to the news. I have pretty much stopped
watching it but all I have seen from CNN is people talking about more
gun control without actually saying what new law would have prevented
this and I have not heard anything about him seeking mental health
support

If you want the doctors to report anything they hear to the cops, that
is fine with me but I bet they won't do it. If you are right about the
obligation, why wasn't any of the other shooters been reported?


How would you know if "any" or how many shooters or potential shooters
were reported to the proper authorities before or, sadly, after they
committed their murders?

Obviously, some were not reported. Do you have information on those who
were reported? How many of those are there? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands?
No, I didn't think you knew.



So you are saying the system works? I am confused.

The only thing that is clear is that virtually every one of these mass
shooters had mental problems and they were not reported to the police
in any manner that would have had their name tagged in the instant
check system.
Most also got their guns into the family legally, from a dealer and
passed the background check.

What law do you want to see?

I ask the same of JPS and BAO.

Give me the outline of a law that would stop these shootings.





Without drastic measures, you cannot "stop" these sorts of shootings in
this country. You can, however, cut down on the number of shootings.

Gizmodo had this interesting recap:

The story of Australia, which had 13 mass shootings in the 18-year
period from 1979 to 1996 but *none* in the succeeding 19 years, is worth
examining.

The turning point was the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania, in
which a gunman killed 35 individuals using semiautomatic weapons.

In the wake of the massacre, the conservative federal government
succeeded in implementing tough new gun control laws throughout the
country. A large array of weapons were banned – including the Glock
semiautomatic handgun used in the Charleston shootings. The government
also imposed a mandatory gun buy back that substantially reduced gun
possession in Australia.

The effect was that both gun suicides and homicides (as well as total
suicides and homicides) fell. In addition, the 1996 legislation made it
a crime to use firearms in self-defense.

When I mention this to disbelieving NRA supporters they insist that
crime must now be rampant in Australia. In fact, the Australian murder
rate has fallen to close one per 100,000 while the US rate, thankfully
lower than in the early 1990s, is still roughly at 4.5 per 100,000 –
over four times as high. Moreover, robberies in Australia occur at only
about half the rate of the US (58 in Australia versus 113.1 per 100,000
in the US in 2012).

http://tinyurl.com/nojlkw6

If you really want the government to take the guns, you go first. Let
them buy yours for $50 each.


Australia did not really change the slope of the murder rate with the
gun ban. It was going down before and the rate stayed pretty constant
afterwards.
I have posted the data several times.



I always get a giggle when I read about the NRA'ers and suchlike who
think their firearms are going to be what it takes to defend themselves
from a federal government that has no interest in them or their popguns.
Even funnier are the yahoos here who think there is little that is more
important than their personal firearms.

The government firepower is really not an issue here unless you think
they would bring in the B-52s and carpet bomb our cities to put down
an insurrection.




The murder rate in Australia is about 1 per 100,000, while it is more
than four times that in the United States. Are you claiming the lower
rate down under has nothing to do with that country's tougher gun
control laws?


Demographics, dummy.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

On 8/31/2015 1:59 PM, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:55:58 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 8/31/15 1:30 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 12:05:32 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/31/15 11:52 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 11:28:07 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/31/15 11:06 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 10:22:25 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/31/15 9:47 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 06:40:11 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:



How else are you going to get mental heath issues into the instant
check, or even a full "form 4" level background check?

Ask your wife


Many who provide treatment are duty and legally bound to inform
authorities if they become aware of a child in a household who is being
abused or whose life is in danger. Further, if spousal domestic violence
is an issue, someone accused of it may be forced to turn in or otherwise
dispose his firearms at least until the case is resolved, and perhaps
after that.

All that is needed is an expansion of "hold harmless" provisions for
those in the professions who report people they are treating who should
not be allowed to have possession of firearms, and turn in or pickup
procedures can follow, along with notations for the background check
mechanisms.

Certainly not foolproof, but a start, and more than the "libertarian"
approach of doing nothing and proclaiming nothing can be done.


So do it,
No argument from me but I bet people like your wife would disagree.
If someone knew that their problems would be reported to the police,
they would not seek help.


Therapists generally are not afraid to call the authorities when a child
is at risk or when a client is physically threatening someone else with
or without the involvement of firearms. You're in no position to know
what motivates people to seek help or what they tell their therapists or
what their therapists tell them when they disclose dangerous, illegal
acts they've committed or are threatening to commit.


This is all moot anyway in the case of this last guy since there are
no reports of him being treated by anyone who would have reported him
if they could.
There is actually a deafening silence from the media about much of
anything about the shooter. It is all about the gun, even though
nobody has explained exactly what law would have stopped him from
getting one., short of a total ban.



There is no obligation on the part of a therapist to discuss a patient
or a former patient with "the media." In fact, therapists are not
supposed to discuss their patients or the problems of their patients
with anyone, unless specific written permission is given.

Unless someone is willing to disclose that information publicly, how
would you know? The shooter in question was reasonably employed in the
past, and at least one of his former employers has stated he was
obstreperous. If he sought and received counseling, it probably was with
a private therapist, who probably would not say anything.

You must watch different news than I do...the shooting and what was
known about the shooter then was all over the news here for days.


I agree I am not glued to the news. I have pretty much stopped
watching it but all I have seen from CNN is people talking about more
gun control without actually saying what new law would have prevented
this and I have not heard anything about him seeking mental health
support

If you want the doctors to report anything they hear to the cops, that
is fine with me but I bet they won't do it. If you are right about the
obligation, why wasn't any of the other shooters been reported?


How would you know if "any" or how many shooters or potential shooters
were reported to the proper authorities before or, sadly, after they
committed their murders?

Obviously, some were not reported. Do you have information on those who
were reported? How many of those are there? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands?
No, I didn't think you knew.



So you are saying the system works? I am confused.

The only thing that is clear is that virtually every one of these mass
shooters had mental problems and they were not reported to the police
in any manner that would have had their name tagged in the instant
check system.
Most also got their guns into the family legally, from a dealer and
passed the background check.

What law do you want to see?

I ask the same of JPS and BAO.

Give me the outline of a law that would stop these shootings.





Without drastic measures, you cannot "stop" these sorts of shootings in
this country. You can, however, cut down on the number of shootings.

Gizmodo had this interesting recap:

The story of Australia, which had 13 mass shootings in the 18-year
period from 1979 to 1996 but *none* in the succeeding 19 years, is worth
examining.

The turning point was the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania, in
which a gunman killed 35 individuals using semiautomatic weapons.

In the wake of the massacre, the conservative federal government
succeeded in implementing tough new gun control laws throughout the
country. A large array of weapons were banned – including the Glock
semiautomatic handgun used in the Charleston shootings. The government
also imposed a mandatory gun buy back that substantially reduced gun
possession in Australia.

The effect was that both gun suicides and homicides (as well as total
suicides and homicides) fell. In addition, the 1996 legislation made it
a crime to use firearms in self-defense.

When I mention this to disbelieving NRA supporters they insist that
crime must now be rampant in Australia. In fact, the Australian murder
rate has fallen to close one per 100,000 while the US rate, thankfully
lower than in the early 1990s, is still roughly at 4.5 per 100,000 –
over four times as high. Moreover, robberies in Australia occur at only
about half the rate of the US (58 in Australia versus 113.1 per 100,000
in the US in 2012).

http://tinyurl.com/nojlkw6

If you really want the government to take the guns, you go first. Let
them buy yours for $50 each.


Australia did not really change the slope of the murder rate with the
gun ban. It was going down before and the rate stayed pretty constant
afterwards.
I have posted the data several times.



I always get a giggle when I read about the NRA'ers and suchlike who
think their firearms are going to be what it takes to defend themselves
from a federal government that has no interest in them or their popguns.
Even funnier are the yahoos here who think there is little that is more
important than their personal firearms.

The government firepower is really not an issue here unless you think
they would bring in the B-52s and carpet bomb our cities to put down
an insurrection.




The murder rate in Australia is about 1 per 100,000, while it is more
than four times that in the United States. Are you claiming the lower
rate down under has nothing to do with that country's tougher gun
control laws?


Demographics, dummy.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

Don't give YKW another opportunity to call you racist, now.

On 8/31/2015 4:27 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:55:58 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

The murder rate in Australia is about 1 per 100,000, while it is more
than four times that in the United States. Are you claiming the lower
rate down under has nothing to do with that country's tougher gun
control laws?


BTW I am still waiting

What is the outline of the law you would pass?
Explain how it saves those two TV people.,

Assassinating two people from 5 feet away could easily be done with a
single action cap and ball revolver and still have plenty of rounds
left over to wound the other lady as she ran away.


Or a couple of lunge and parrys.

On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:55:58 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/31/15 1:30 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 12:05:32 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/31/15 11:52 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 11:28:07 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/31/15 11:06 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 10:22:25 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

On 8/31/15 9:47 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 06:40:11 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:



How else are you going to get mental heath issues into the instant
check, or even a full "form 4" level background check?

Ask your wife


Many who provide treatment are duty and legally bound to inform
authorities if they become aware of a child in a household who is being
abused or whose life is in danger. Further, if spousal domestic violence
is an issue, someone accused of it may be forced to turn in or otherwise
dispose his firearms at least until the case is resolved, and perhaps
after that.

All that is needed is an expansion of "hold harmless" provisions for
those in the professions who report people they are treating who should
not be allowed to have possession of firearms, and turn in or pickup
procedures can follow, along with notations for the background check
mechanisms.

Certainly not foolproof, but a start, and more than the "libertarian"
approach of doing nothing and proclaiming nothing can be done.


So do it,
No argument from me but I bet people like your wife would disagree.
If someone knew that their problems would be reported to the police,
they would not seek help.


Therapists generally are not afraid to call the authorities when a child
is at risk or when a client is physically threatening someone else with
or without the involvement of firearms. You're in no position to know
what motivates people to seek help or what they tell their therapists or
what their therapists tell them when they disclose dangerous, illegal
acts they've committed or are threatening to commit.


This is all moot anyway in the case of this last guy since there are
no reports of him being treated by anyone who would have reported him
if they could.
There is actually a deafening silence from the media about much of
anything about the shooter. It is all about the gun, even though
nobody has explained exactly what law would have stopped him from
getting one., short of a total ban.



There is no obligation on the part of a therapist to discuss a patient
or a former patient with "the media." In fact, therapists are not
supposed to discuss their patients or the problems of their patients
with anyone, unless specific written permission is given.

Unless someone is willing to disclose that information publicly, how
would you know? The shooter in question was reasonably employed in the
past, and at least one of his former employers has stated he was
obstreperous. If he sought and received counseling, it probably was with
a private therapist, who probably would not say anything.

You must watch different news than I do...the shooting and what was
known about the shooter then was all over the news here for days.


I agree I am not glued to the news. I have pretty much stopped
watching it but all I have seen from CNN is people talking about more
gun control without actually saying what new law would have prevented
this and I have not heard anything about him seeking mental health
support

If you want the doctors to report anything they hear to the cops, that
is fine with me but I bet they won't do it. If you are right about the
obligation, why wasn't any of the other shooters been reported?


How would you know if "any" or how many shooters or potential shooters
were reported to the proper authorities before or, sadly, after they
committed their murders?

Obviously, some were not reported. Do you have information on those who
were reported? How many of those are there? Dozens? Hundreds? Thousands?
No, I didn't think you knew.



So you are saying the system works? I am confused.

The only thing that is clear is that virtually every one of these mass
shooters had mental problems and they were not reported to the police
in any manner that would have had their name tagged in the instant
check system.
Most also got their guns into the family legally, from a dealer and
passed the background check.

What law do you want to see?

I ask the same of JPS and BAO.

Give me the outline of a law that would stop these shootings.





Without drastic measures, you cannot "stop" these sorts of shootings in
this country. You can, however, cut down on the number of shootings.

Gizmodo had this interesting recap:

The story of Australia, which had 13 mass shootings in the 18-year
period from 1979 to 1996 but *none* in the succeeding 19 years, is worth
examining.

The turning point was the 1996 Port Arthur massacre in Tasmania, in
which a gunman killed 35 individuals using semiautomatic weapons.

In the wake of the massacre, the conservative federal government
succeeded in implementing tough new gun control laws throughout the
country. A large array of weapons were banned – including the Glock
semiautomatic handgun used in the Charleston shootings. The government
also imposed a mandatory gun buy back that substantially reduced gun
possession in Australia.

The effect was that both gun suicides and homicides (as well as total
suicides and homicides) fell. In addition, the 1996 legislation made it
a crime to use firearms in self-defense.

When I mention this to disbelieving NRA supporters they insist that
crime must now be rampant in Australia. In fact, the Australian murder
rate has fallen to close one per 100,000 while the US rate, thankfully
lower than in the early 1990s, is still roughly at 4.5 per 100,000 –
over four times as high. Moreover, robberies in Australia occur at only
about half the rate of the US (58 in Australia versus 113.1 per 100,000
in the US in 2012).

http://tinyurl.com/nojlkw6

If you really want the government to take the guns, you go first. Let
them buy yours for $50 each.


Australia did not really change the slope of the murder rate with the
gun ban. It was going down before and the rate stayed pretty constant
afterwards.
I have posted the data several times.



I always get a giggle when I read about the NRA'ers and suchlike who
think their firearms are going to be what it takes to defend themselves
from a federal government that has no interest in them or their popguns.
Even funnier are the yahoos here who think there is little that is more
important than their personal firearms.

The government firepower is really not an issue here unless you think
they would bring in the B-52s and carpet bomb our cities to put down
an insurrection.




The murder rate in Australia is about 1 per 100,000, while it is more
than four times that in the United States. Are you claiming the lower
rate down under has nothing to do with that country's tougher gun
control laws?

Yes. Even if you took every gun murder in the US out of the statistic,
we still kill a lot more people.

.... But that was not what I said was it. Their murder rate was on the
decline before the gun ban and the slope barely had a blip after the
ban. People simply switched to other weapons.

On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:55:58 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote:

The murder rate in Australia is about 1 per 100,000, while it is more
than four times that in the United States. Are you claiming the lower
rate down under has nothing to do with that country's tougher gun
control laws?


BTW I am still waiting

What is the outline of the law you would pass?
Explain how it saves those two TV people.,

Assassinating two people from 5 feet away could easily be done with a
single action cap and ball revolver and still have plenty of rounds
left over to wound the other lady as she ran away.