Haven’t almost all the school shooters been students???

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Vector99

See my previous post. I don't disagree.

I'm simply talking immediate perhaps even temporary solutions.

I would support a measure that required a mental evaluation as part of a background check for everyone to purchase their first gun.

Evaluation by whom?
What is the criteria?
Who qualifies and certifies those that do the evaluation?

a reply to: Krakatoa

Sure, take a different tactic, like that of the Vegas shooter.

Still a risk and other factors that weigh in.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Vector99

I'm not convinced that would work nor am I convinced that it is constitutionally congruent.

Well, technically any restriction on owning, possessing, purchasing, or manufacturing a firearm should be a violation of the 2A, but we also have common sense.

I don't see a mental evaluation for first purchase as a solution, more so it's a step in the process. Your everyday individual would easily pass this evaluation, but your pissed off 18 year old probably won't.

It's a step that most gun advocates would agree with. If it takes you a couple weeks to get your gun, it is what it is. You will get it, you just have to be proven clinically sane the first time.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Krakatoa

Sure, take a different tactic, like that of the Vegas shooter.

Still a risk and other factors that weigh in.

There is a difference with the Vegas shooting though, it was not personal. In each of these school shootings, it was personal. A personal vendetta. A personal plan of revenge against those that tormented them, that refused to help.

Yet, we hear NONE of that aspect in any of these debates. Only it's the gun, the gun, the scary gun. Ban them, make them harder to get. That does not stop the bleeding, only puts a bandage atop it, the injury is deeper than that. It requires a surgical approach to resolve.

a reply to: Vector99

I see your aim but I just want to question the target. Simple question; how difficult is it to obtain a drivers license? Something stewed up by the government would be similar IMO.

Having actually had this thought this morning, the realization that I've gone through 100's of hours of training over my years via family and friends and hunting. So, to that why shouldn't others have at least 'some' training and education. By the time I took the required hunter's safety course to obtain my hunting licenses, it wasn't even necessary but it was a 'test.'

Clearly, I too don't know the right answer but yes, education should be on the list.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Vector99

See my previous post. I don't disagree.

I'm simply talking immediate perhaps even temporary solutions.

I would support a measure that required a mental evaluation as part of a background check for everyone to purchase their first gun.

Evaluation by whom?
What is the criteria?
Who qualifies and certifies those that do the evaluation?

A simple evaluation by a non-partisan group of mental health specialists. It takes all of 20-30 minutes, and there are plenty of people in the country qualified to conduct such evaluations, and it's a first time thing only.

a reply to: Krakatoa

That's clear, and that's why it brought up the point I made initially where these are easy targets.

It raises the question that if he simply couldn't get in and out with casualties with minimal risk to self, would this have played out the same? Maybe he would have manned up, but I would be that he would have spiraled into further self destruction and that's where the problem resides, IMO.

originally posted by: Lysergic
a reply to: LordAhriman

#SSRI

shhhhhhhhhh Big Pharm spends $500 billion a year advertising their drugs on the MSM! Ever wonder why they are NEVER mentioned?

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Vector99

See my previous post. I don't disagree.

I'm simply talking immediate perhaps even temporary solutions.

I would support a measure that required a mental evaluation as part of a background check for everyone to purchase their first gun.

Evaluation by whom?
What is the criteria?
Who qualifies and certifies those that do the evaluation?

A simple evaluation by a non-partisan group of mental health specialists. It takes all of 20-30 minutes, and there are plenty of people in the country qualified to conduct such evaluations, and it's a first time thing only.

Non-partisan group? Really? Is there such a thing? I highly doubt it. And frankly, depending upon some group of "non-partisan professionals" to exercise a guaranteed right? Would we require the same for the right to worship any religion? After all, many of them demand you believe in people in the sky talking to you. Does that sound like a rational person to you?

Psychology is all subjective. Regardless of how many people think it is science.....it is not.

ETA:
I'll give you an example form m own life. I had to submit to ta psychologist interview when entering college since I was an older student (still don't know why that was required). The interview went along as you would expect. Then the psychologist (P) asked:

P: So, tell me, do you know the difference between a table and a chair?

ME: (rolling my eyes) Really? OK, of course, tables DO NOT fly. Sheesh!

P: (with stunned silence and blank stare) Ahh, uhmmm... Why, do YOU believe tables can fly? (scribbling in her notepad)

ME: Of course they do. It happens every day. Heck, some are above us flying right now.

P: Tables are flying above us, right now? Do you see them? (scribbling in her notepad)

ME: (snort of derision) NO...of course not. Do you?

P: Then where are these flying tables?

ME: In front of every seat on every airline flight above us at about 35,000 ft.

P: Oh... I see. But aren't those chairs also flying?

ME: No, those are fixed seats, not chairs. A chair is movable....a table can be a fixed or moveable piece of furniture. How long have you been in a professional in this field? (evil grin on my face).

P: Scratching out notes. Ok, that's all I needed today. Thank you.

a reply to: JinMI

Driver license, good example! Though driving isn't a right, it's a privilege, it does indeed require a test involving an individual to judge your ability to safely operate it.

If during your driving test you are driving erratically and yelling obscenities, you won't get a license.

The same result would be achieved with a mental evaluation, and like I said for FIRST purchase only.

a reply to: Krakatoa

If you scroll up in the thread you will see where I say

Well, technically any restriction on owning, possessing, purchasing, or manufacturing a firearm should be a violation of the 2A

So yes, I get that aspect 100%.

However, there ARE restrictions currently. So if there are to be restrictions, how about make them effective restrictions?

a reply to: Lysergic

SOME REJECTION is a normal part of life..

A TOTAL REJECTION is not a “normal” (evolutionary) part of life. In cave man days when

We haven’t even evolved to deal with agriculture yet, let alone with moden life..

In cave man days no one makes it to 20 a Virgin.. I’m sure rape was rampant, if not orgy filled societies..


Please do not think I am saying this is an adequate excuse for murdering children.

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Krakatoa

If you scroll up in the thread you will see where I say

Well, technically any restriction on owning, possessing, purchasing, or manufacturing a firearm should be a violation of the 2A

So yes, I get that aspect 100%.

However, there ARE restrictions currently. So if there are to be restrictions, how about make them effective restrictions?

If you scroll up you will see I made an addendum to my post by adding a personal anecdote on why it would not be an effective analysis.

a reply to: Vector99

So you see the flaw right? Since there are drivers licenses in the hand of people who drive erratically, scream out their windows and even kill others with their vehicles, then this doesn't seem like a logical solution.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: Vector99

So you see the flaw right? Since there are drivers licenses in the hand of people who drive erratically, scream out their windows and even kill others with their vehicles, then this doesn't seem like a logical solution.

And like I said, it's not a solution, it's a step.

a reply to: Vector99

Point taken.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Reguardless, I think this is the only way we have to identify the killer BEFORE he dies any killing.

The Sheriff and the FBI already had him identified. They just didn't do anything about it, because until a crime is committed everyone is considered free. You are starting to sound as if you would prefer it to be like the Minority Report. Do you believe in determinism or free will?

Sure some of the other proposed methods would help accidental and other shootings, but I don’t think much helps with school shootings.

They had Security. He just didn't do anything. He was either very unqualified to have his position, or he was told not to interfere. Either way questions are raised about how to keep our children safe. Maybe it is our very educational system that is putting the children at risk. What kind of people are they teaching our children to become? The Parental home unit is to be blamed most of all.

THE ONLY THING THAT WILL STOP SCHOOL SHOOTINGS IS EARLY IDENTIFICATION... and we already know what school they will come from..

That gives off a Minority Report vibe.

A student of a university today killed his parents. We have to change the educational system's training of our children in order to address the situation with schools.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Krakatoa

If you scroll up in the thread you will see where I say

Well, technically any restriction on owning, possessing, purchasing, or manufacturing a firearm should be a violation of the 2A

So yes, I get that aspect 100%.

However, there ARE restrictions currently. So if there are to be restrictions, how about make them effective restrictions?

If you scroll up you will see I made an addendum to my post by adding a personal anecdote on why it would not be an effective analysis.

The end of your anecdote finished with the psychologist scratching out her notes after realizing you were being cynical.

A crazy person won't make that distinction, which would keep a gun out of the hands of a mentally impaired individual. How is that bad?

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Krakatoa

If you scroll up in the thread you will see where I say

Well, technically any restriction on owning, possessing, purchasing, or manufacturing a firearm should be a violation of the 2A

So yes, I get that aspect 100%.

However, there ARE restrictions currently. So if there are to be restrictions, how about make them effective restrictions?

If you scroll up you will see I made an addendum to my post by adding a personal anecdote on why it would not be an effective analysis.

The end of your anecdote finished with the psychologist scratching out her notes after realizing you were being cynical.

A crazy person won't make that distinction, which would keep a gun out of the hands of a mentally impaired individual. How is that bad?

Really. A crazy person would? And you know that how? Are you a professional? Have your personally dealt with "crazy people"? Would you agree Ted Bundy was a "crazy person"? He would have easily passed that test...without even being flippant.

Someone intent upon killing will say whatever it takes to get what they want. A persons ACTIONS speak louder than words. A sociopath can pass a lie detector test since that particular type of person feels no guilt or remorse. So, to them lying is truth.

A sinple 30 minute interview is hardly enough to determine whether is is worth stripping a person of their constitutionally protected rights. That requires a judges determination after careful review. That is purposeful in order to prevent it being used too routinely, and for political and other nefarious reasons. Due process requires the ability to question and defend oneself. Not to just be interviewed for 30 minutes and have someone judge you with no recourse whatever.

The founding fathers were not stupid. They had just fought a long war, that cost many lives, to escape that type of "justice".

a reply to: Krakatoa

Gun regulations/restrictions already exist. The 2A has already been pissed on.

Yes, some nutcases will be nutcases in an interview for a gun purchase.

It's a step, not a solution...