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?

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?

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?
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.