|
Virginia shooting
It is funny watching the usual suspects dance around this one.
They can't play up the racial component because the racism is going the wrong way. They can't bring up the "gun show loophole" because this guy went through all the hoops, although is does keep being brought up as something he might have done ... but he didn't.. The fact is, he did go through all of the recommended "Brady" processes and purchased these guns legally. It could have easily happened in any state in the union. I have seen no reason why Massachusetts, New York or New Jersey would have denied him. Then we are left with the mental health issues. I have not heard about him seeing a doctor and even if he did, would they have been willing to release his medical records to the police? That is the open question. How much does perceived public safety allow the government to pierce doctor patient confidentiality? |
Virginia shooting
|
Virginia shooting
|
Virginia shooting
|
Virginia shooting
On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 17:33:48 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote: In article h9c6uad4ibp5eqsgmlnuua6m8uf1jpjrq8@ 4ax.com, says... It is funny watching the usual suspects dance around this one. They can't play up the racial component because the racism is going the wrong way. They can't bring up the "gun show loophole" because this guy went through all the hoops, although is does keep being brought up as something he might have done ... but he didn't.. The fact is, he did go through all of the recommended "Brady" processes and purchased these guns legally. It could have easily happened in any state in the union. I have seen no reason why Massachusetts, New York or New Jersey would have denied him. Then we are left with the mental health issues. I have not heard about him seeing a doctor and even if he did, would they have been willing to release his medical records to the police? That is the open question. How much does perceived public safety allow the government to pierce doctor patient confidentiality? The ONLY issue here is the price paid for your right to plink. Add 3 more to the tally. The cost of your right to plink is just getting higher and higher. BTW, that's your cue to start talking about the dangers of saw blades and motor vehicles. So you want to ban guns? How did that work for drugs or anything else? Personally, it will not affect me in any way. I doubt I will ever buy another gun. |
Virginia shooting
On 8/30/15 11:00 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 13:17:37 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 8/30/15 12:56 PM, wrote: It is funny watching the usual suspects dance around this one. They can't play up the racial component because the racism is going the wrong way. They can't bring up the "gun show loophole" because this guy went through all the hoops, although is does keep being brought up as something he might have done ... but he didn't.. The fact is, he did go through all of the recommended "Brady" processes and purchased these guns legally. It could have easily happened in any state in the union. I have seen no reason why Massachusetts, New York or New Jersey would have denied him. Then we are left with the mental health issues. I have not heard about him seeing a doctor and even if he did, would they have been willing to release his medical records to the police? That is the open question. How much does perceived public safety allow the government to pierce doctor patient confidentiality? And your solution to help curtail gun violence in this country is to do...nothing, right? It's just another one of those societal problems on your list about which nothing can be done or tried, because, well, because it interferes with your libertarianism, right? I simply asked the question. Should we be piercing the doctor patient confidentiality laws? 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. |
Virginia shooting
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 06:40:11 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 8/30/15 11:00 PM, wrote: On Sun, 30 Aug 2015 13:17:37 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 8/30/15 12:56 PM, wrote: It is funny watching the usual suspects dance around this one. They can't play up the racial component because the racism is going the wrong way. They can't bring up the "gun show loophole" because this guy went through all the hoops, although is does keep being brought up as something he might have done ... but he didn't.. The fact is, he did go through all of the recommended "Brady" processes and purchased these guns legally. It could have easily happened in any state in the union. I have seen no reason why Massachusetts, New York or New Jersey would have denied him. Then we are left with the mental health issues. I have not heard about him seeing a doctor and even if he did, would they have been willing to release his medical records to the police? That is the open question. How much does perceived public safety allow the government to pierce doctor patient confidentiality? And your solution to help curtail gun violence in this country is to do...nothing, right? It's just another one of those societal problems on your list about which nothing can be done or tried, because, well, because it interferes with your libertarianism, right? I simply asked the question. Should we be piercing the doctor patient confidentiality laws? 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. 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. |
Virginia shooting
|
Virginia shooting
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? |
Virginia shooting
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. |
Virginia shooting
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. |
Virginia shooting
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. |
Virginia shooting
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. |
Virginia shooting
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? |
Virginia shooting
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! |
Virginia shooting
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. |
Virginia shooting
|
Virginia shooting
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. |
Virginia shooting
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. |
Virginia shooting
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. Ahh...back to your "we can't do anything" premise. -- Sent from my iPhone 6+ |
Virginia shooting
|
Virginia shooting
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 15:31:26 -0400, Justan Olphart wrote:
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. There's only one person here who gives a **** about what YKW says, besides YKW that is. -- Ban idiots, not guns! |
Virginia shooting
|
Virginia shooting
On 31 Aug 2015 20:29:22 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote:
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. Ahh...back to your "we can't do anything" premise. Take an extra 15 seconds and read the question before you pop out a brain fart. What is YOUR idea. |
Virginia shooting
|
Virginia shooting
On 8/31/15 7:19 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 8/31/15 7:17 PM, wrote: On 31 Aug 2015 20:29:22 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote: 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. Ahh...back to your "we can't do anything" premise. Take an extra 15 seconds and read the question before you pop out a brain fart. What is YOUR idea. Take an extra 30 seconds to read my idea before you pop out another brain fart. And, of course, *your* idea was, as usual, to do nothing because "we can't do anything." Right? Oh, in case you can't find my response...and can't google it: For starters, and I mean starters: Licensing for anyone who wants to own a firearm, including a serious background check and a 14-day waiting period. Severe restrictions on the types of firearms that can be purchased. Confiscation with compensation/tax credits of all firearms after a certain date that are not on the approved list. Possession of unapproved firearms a felony. Confiscated firearms turned to scrap. All guns owners required to purchase and maintain a multi-million dollar liability policy that pays the victims or victims' families for deaths or injuries caused by the firearms. No proof of insurance, no purchase of firearms. Insurance lapses? Firearms must be turned in for destruction. Starters, as I stated. I might have to turn in my AR15. No biggie. Firearms to me are a hobby, like stamp collecting and model railroading. |
Virginia shooting
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 16:52:51 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 8/31/15 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. For starters, and I mean starters: Licensing for anyone who wants to own a firearm, including a serious background check and a 14-day waiting period. That would not have affected this case nor most of the others. Severe restrictions on the types of firearms that can be purchased. See above Confiscation with compensation/tax credits of all firearms after a certain date that are not on the approved list. Perhaps OK if the compensation is "just" Possession of unapproved firearms a felony. It already is. Confiscated firearms turned to scrap. These days they usually are. All guns owners required to purchase and maintain a multi-million dollar liability policy that pays the victims or victims' families for deaths or injuries caused by the firearms. No proof of insurance, no purchase of firearms. Insurance lapses? Firearms must be turned in for destruction. How much do you carry now? Starters, as I stated. I might have to turn in my AR15. No biggie. Firearms to me are a hobby, like stamp collecting and model railroading. You would be OK if they said your AR was worth $50? In real life, if they are coming, they would want your LEs and your wheel guns too. Guys like BAO and JPS see little difference. How happy would you be when they chipped up your pristine SAs and gave you a $50 for them? |
Virginia shooting
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 17:30:52 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote: The tally of innocent people murdered ever increases. Just so you have the right to plink. Think about it. === Believe it or not, the murder rate is on a steady down trend. It's the high profile events that get all the publicity. BTW, it's about far more than the "right to plink". It's about the right to live as a free people, the right to hunt, and the right to defend yourself. It's mostly city weenies who have never known any of that who have a problem. |
Virginia shooting
On 8/31/15 7:24 PM, wrote:
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 16:52:51 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 8/31/15 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. For starters, and I mean starters: Licensing for anyone who wants to own a firearm, including a serious background check and a 14-day waiting period. That would not have affected this case nor most of the others. Severe restrictions on the types of firearms that can be purchased. See above Confiscation with compensation/tax credits of all firearms after a certain date that are not on the approved list. Perhaps OK if the compensation is "just" Possession of unapproved firearms a felony. It already is. Confiscated firearms turned to scrap. These days they usually are. All guns owners required to purchase and maintain a multi-million dollar liability policy that pays the victims or victims' families for deaths or injuries caused by the firearms. No proof of insurance, no purchase of firearms. Insurance lapses? Firearms must be turned in for destruction. How much do you carry now? Starters, as I stated. I might have to turn in my AR15. No biggie. Firearms to me are a hobby, like stamp collecting and model railroading. You would be OK if they said your AR was worth $50? In real life, if they are coming, they would want your LEs and your wheel guns too. Guys like BAO and JPS see little difference. How happy would you be when they chipped up your pristine SAs and gave you a $50 for them? I love your plan: "Don't do anything because, well, we can't do anything, and therefore we shouldn't do anything because, well, we can't do anything." That's your plan, right? |
Virginia shooting
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 19:54:59 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: If a 9mm round starts costing a buck to shoot and the Glock that you fire it with has a 40%-60% federal tax applied when you buy it, the number of people interested in owning guns is going to drop like a rock. === The guys I shoot with would have no problem paying a substantial excise tax. Most would go on a buying spree before the tax was enacted however, and the NRA would have the whole deal in the courts for years. That's what we pay them for. Most serious shooters reload their own ammo for pennies a round. These are not the guys committing gun crimes however so why penalizer them? |
Virginia shooting
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 17:30:52 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote: In article 2md9uatok5sps897uflah9u5ledsdmrp46@ 4ax.com, says... 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. Shame guns away. You're a fine example. Who but a gun nut - full of gun nut violence - would propose a method of murdering innocent people? Shame on you! All of you gun-owners are weak. Just a matter of getting the word out. The tally of innocent people murdered ever increases. Just so you have the right to plink. Think about it. I have thought about it. You want to strip a constitutional right from 100,000,000 people because several thousand are not deserving. Most of them are already breaking the law, simply by having a gun. |
Virginia shooting
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 19:35:15 -0400, Keyser Söze
wrote: On 8/31/15 7:24 PM, wrote: On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 16:52:51 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: On 8/31/15 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. For starters, and I mean starters: Licensing for anyone who wants to own a firearm, including a serious background check and a 14-day waiting period. That would not have affected this case nor most of the others. Severe restrictions on the types of firearms that can be purchased. See above Confiscation with compensation/tax credits of all firearms after a certain date that are not on the approved list. Perhaps OK if the compensation is "just" Possession of unapproved firearms a felony. It already is. Confiscated firearms turned to scrap. These days they usually are. All guns owners required to purchase and maintain a multi-million dollar liability policy that pays the victims or victims' families for deaths or injuries caused by the firearms. No proof of insurance, no purchase of firearms. Insurance lapses? Firearms must be turned in for destruction. How much do you carry now? Starters, as I stated. I might have to turn in my AR15. No biggie. Firearms to me are a hobby, like stamp collecting and model railroading. You would be OK if they said your AR was worth $50? In real life, if they are coming, they would want your LEs and your wheel guns too. Guys like BAO and JPS see little difference. How happy would you be when they chipped up your pristine SAs and gave you a $50 for them? I love your plan: "Don't do anything because, well, we can't do anything, and therefore we shouldn't do anything because, well, we can't do anything." That's your plan, right? I asked you what you would do and none of it would have stopped most (if any) of these mass murders. Maybe there is nothing we can do on the "gun" side. The answer is on the mental health side. Why not work on the problem of why people want to kill? It is ridiculous to think you can simply pass a law and fix that. I always hear about Sweden and Japan but nobody points out they also have far fewer stabbings, strangulations and blunt force murders. We have a far more violent culture and where the violence is the worst, political correctness will not let us identify why. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:05 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com