Texas Church Shooting : Thread

a reply to: TrueBrit

While that's great, if he didn't have an active diagnosis before the shooting, that wouldn't have helped. Have any of the recent mass shooters had a diagnosis of mental illness BEFORE they shot a place up?

a reply to: face23785

I think the biggest sticking factor is what they consider and who makes the determination. What if they simply go by medications or a history of same? How many have taken medications used for things other than mental issues that are primarily used for mental issues?

I know I have.

What constitutes something that would qualify you as a mental risk?

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Justoneman

I specifically have been suggesting that this issue is nothing to do with guns, for precisely my entire interaction with this thread.

I have come to expect better than that from you.
ETA
It wasn't exactly the gun comments in that post I was upsetting to me. You position on that does need a fair rebuking though. We have people who have, for whatever reason, gotten to the point of having their hate run so deep they are acting on it. THAT is our real problem. Some of it is the med's.
A good kid that went bad in one day that I knew is a good example. A kid I coached baseball that my son loved, just about two years ago and fresh out of school while in the Air Force, goes into a store and fragged three people to death he didn't know. He left the message "goodbye me" on his FB page. His mom claimed they were making him take some drug but she didn't know the name. I happen to know from my experience that our military offers those to people with a discipline issue. By offering them experimental drugs for their conviction if guilty of something, they can skip punishment.

Makes me wonder what the current mass murderer was on. He had violent tendencies and would have been made to be on meds.

a reply to: ketsuko

I certainly hope so! And you may well be correct.

I will yield the benefit of the doubt to TB, as I believe he is generally fairly well reasoned and a good fellow (and I actually quite like some of his viewpoints). We don't always agree, but he's generally got pretty good form. That last post not withstanding, of course.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Is there proof this guy was antifa?

I saw a photo that appeared to be shipped last night.

Has anything new came to light?

a reply to: Dfairlite

Not sure where you're headed with your statement, but the simple fact he had been "diagnosed" with a Dishonorable Discharge for spousal abuse and battery...is diagnosis enough to gauge his mental stability. At least it is to me!

Gun control and mental health thread now.

For the person asking if the man diagnosed with mental health issues, no facts to that as of yet . He is most likely no less sane than many other Americans.

a reply to: roadgravel

You don't see a Dishonorable Discharge for criminal spousal abuse and battery as pretty conclusive evidence of mental health issues????? I most certainly do, and this same sentiment is also further confirmed and reflected in any 4473 you fill out.

a reply to: Dfairlite

Yes, and many of them were on some form of prescription medication for those issues as well. Lanza is an example.

What I am suggesting, is that this fellow in Texas SHOULD have had a diagnosis, since the incident in which he assaulted his wife and child. People who are sane do not do that. People who are some kind of mentally defective do that. A diagnosis should have been available at the time, and his examination by psychomedical professionals should have been mandatory at the time.

a reply to: Justoneman

Why?

Do I strike you as the sort of person who would agree with the following statement:

"If people did not want their brains smashed in, they would not make hammers so easy to purchase".

?

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Both of those things prohibit you from owning a firearm; a dishonorable discharge and domestic violence are both things that are tracked in NICS. I've heard he didn't actually have a dishonorable discharge, but the domestic violence charge should have been caught. Anyone know where he got the guns?

a reply to: TrueBrit

Domestic violence is a disqualifier. If he actually had a conviction for that he would not have been able to buy a gun.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Justoneman

I specifically have been suggesting that this issue is nothing to do with guns, for precisely my entire interaction with this thread.

I have come to expect better than that from you.
ETA
It wasn't exactly the gun comments in that post I was upsetting to me. You position on that does need a fair rebuking though. We have people who have, for whatever reason, gotten to the point of having their hate run so deep they are acting on it. THAT is our real problem. Some of it is the med's.
A good kid that went bad in one day that I knew is a good example. A kid I coached baseball that my son loved, just about two years ago and fresh out of school while in the Air Force, goes into a store and fragged three people to death he didn't know. He left the message "goodbye me" on his FB page. His mom claimed they were making him take some drug but she didn't know the name. I happen to know from my experience that our military offers those to people with a discipline issue. By offering them experimental drugs for their conviction if guilty of something, they can skip punishment.

Makes me wonder what the current mass murderer was on. He had violent tendencies and would have been made to be on meds.

I posted this too late to respond on this thread.....

a reply to: ketsuko

I know you weren't. I just wanted to make sure to condemn this even if his atheism turns out to not be a motivating factor.

I am reading now that his 'second wife's family' were members of the church so there is possibly another motivation for his choice of targeting Christians in a Baptist church.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Wow...

FCD, love you man but:

Factually, there have been more terror offences committed by far right lunatics, in both the US and the UK, than there ever have by any Muslim organisation.

And it is a fact that the last time a political figure was assassinated in my country, the assassination was carried out by a far right lunatic.

You can argue that the Muslim terrorists have been more successful, killed more people, but there are FAR fewer of them. Also, its little wonder they are more successful, given that they are receiving training and funding from the US and the UK, by way of their middle men in the proxy armies we refer to as terror groups.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Dfairlite

Yes, and many of them were on some form of prescription medication for those issues as well. Lanza is an example.

What I am suggesting, is that this fellow in Texas SHOULD have had a diagnosis, since the incident in which he assaulted his wife and child. People who are sane do not do that. People who are some kind of mentally defective do that. A diagnosis should have been available at the time, and his examination by psychomedical professionals should have been mandatory at the time.

Agreed. The outfit that sold him the weapon will be wishing they hadn't. If they get to keep their license at all, they will pay a hefty fine no matter. Dumb ass system if it was the background check that let him have it, or a real dumb ass FFL holder.

a reply to: Dfairlite


He was discharged from the military over it. He did not legally own his weapon either, from what I understand. However, his condition meant that he should not have been able to access either a weapon, OR the regular public, and if he had been under constant psychological evaluation, as he should have been since that incident with his spouse and child, he would not have been permitted to be around other human beings, as his condition devolved.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: roadgravel

You don't see a Dishonorable Discharge for criminal spousal abuse and battery as pretty conclusive evidence of mental health issues????? I most certainly do, and this same sentiment is also further confirmed and reflected in any 4473 you fill out.

Not in the context of what goes on with others in this country. That implies a huge number of people fit that health issue.

Now do I think it might be an issue (anger uncontrolled) to be looked at in all of this down the road? Yes.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Yes, we need to be able to commit the mentally ill against their will again. That will solve much of the issue.

a reply to: Dfairlite

It appears you are correct about the Dishonorable, and I stand corrected.

(I am researching the particulars now) It would appear a 'Bad Conduct' discharge coupled with incarceration of a year or longer (which is what this guy had) constitutes a Felony under civilian laws. However, the discharge would have to be upgraded, and from what I've seen so far this can only be done by the President. More to follow.