[BiothDaSloth]

Originally Posted by William May ↗

I think the EVENTS should be posted, but it should NOT be allowed to publish the name or I.D. of the perpetrator, since that is largely the perpetrator's intent to begin with, to become "famous". I suggest the perpetrator ALWAYS be referred to as "Numbnuts" or "Dingbat" or "Cumswiller" or something equally appropriate.

I see no point in acting like the actual events never happened.

In my opinion, this rule just plays into the hands of the NRA nuts who believe everyone should have access to a gun, even criminals and mental patients, and who would prefer the events NEVER be mentioned.

(I USED to be in the NRA, but came to my senses 20 years ago when they supported gun availability for the mentally ill. WTF were they thinking?!?!?!)

I have never heard that. I am strongly pro 2A but would never support that. How mentally ill are we talking? I have major depressive disorder but no intent to shoot myself or others (unless attacked or family is in harm's way)

[BiothDaSloth]

Also, I thought it was cool how that hefty woman choked him out.

[CrustyToes]

Every American should have to see videos of what goes on in Brazil. Maybe then people will stop bitching about pew control

[dystopian]

Originally Posted by William May ↗

Sorry, but I don't get my news from TV. I research the events I'm interested in.

The Nashville school shooter WAS mentally ill, but STILL managed to legally order and buy firearms.

So it would appear to me that your vaunted "Orange Man System" is not really working at all.

Also, it seems you ARE supporting the right to firearm access, even for the mentally ill. Which is just parroting the NRA line that made me quit the organization in the first place, after being a loyal member for many years.

I think he’s saying if guns are going to be categorically outlawed for ‘the mentally ill’ (they are not, and arguably should not be, since most Americans at some point have something that could be diagnosable as a mental illness) it must be done by the legislature and in accordance with due process and the constitution, and not an unconstitutional executive order. It is rare though to see someone who in effect asserts that even a history of someone having been depressed because their family member died, or having dyslexia and needing help with finances, or having a tendency to be overly picky about what they eat, should result in them having an automatic lifelong ban on their access to effective means of self defense.

[The Grim Repper]

Man, I'd break that little bitch in two. I'd have given him a desk to wear as a hat. Kill that piece of shit.

[William May]

Originally Posted by dystopian ↗

I think he’s saying if guns are going to be categorically outlawed for ‘the mentally ill’ (they are not, and arguably should not be, since most Americans at some point have something that could be diagnosable as a mental illness) it must be done by the legislature and in accordance with due process and the constitution, and not an unconstitutional executive order. It is rare though to see someone who in effect asserts that even a history of someone having been depressed because their family member died, or having dyslexia and needing help with finances, or having a tendency to be overly picky about what they eat, should result in them having an automatic lifelong ban on their access to effective means of self defense.

All good points

HOWEVER: The Nashville shooter was mentally ill and under treatment. Her parents did not know she owned guns, they thought she had sold the one she had previously. Actually, she hid the previously owned gun, and then, because she was not on any mental health exclusion list, wound up buying 5 more weapons.
Legally.
So whatever monitoring or system is already in place, IT IS NOT WORKING.
The simple fact is that a functioning mental health law would have prevented her from ever buying another gun, and might have helped her parents get rid of the one she already had.

I am as Pro2A as you can get. But the idea that the mentally ill should have access to firearms is ludicrous. This is not the first shooting related to mental illness.

This is a simple requirement that would not interfere with ANY regular person's right to own a firearm.

In any case, if things like this keep happening, then the 2A is doomed. A majority of people right now want much further gun control.

If the 2A people don't start working towards an acceptable solution to the mass shooting problem, then one will be imposed. It will probably be FAR WORSE than what you can imagine, possibly even the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

So you need to sit down and ask yourself "Am I willing to do nothing and stand by while the 2A evaporates?"

or "Am I going to do what I can to end this problem, and save 2A and private gun ownership?"

[TSoprano007]

I realize we are a modern society but my belief is to take these individuals and have them either tortured and mamed so they have no ( Hands ) and spend their misserable lives in suffering. Killing Them is a Bullshit Way Out. What Kind of Justice is That. Also you need to allow other people to watch the spectacle of brutalizing and maiming the individual criminal so they SEE FIRST HAND WHAT THEY GOT COMING SHOULD THEY GO THE SAME ROUTE...That Will Certainly Reduce Crime ASAP.

I Humbly Offer This Example and Please Share Your Thoughts. Lets Say You Catch A Rapist Of Little Girls. Myself""I would TAke The Individual To A House Of Super Fine Hookers. Get Him Good And High on Beer...Then HAve Him Pick His Favorite Hooker For The Best Blowjob of His Life. You Have The Woman Tie Him Up In A Chair, She Then Does Her Thing To Get Him Hard As A Rock. Then You Take a 8 Inch Slim Hollow Glass Rod And Insert It Up His Pee Hole and Proceed To Break The Rod Up Inside Him And Mash The Glass Over and Over and Over Till His Junk Falls Off While The Public Watches. That Is Rape Deterrence 100%

[dystopian]

Originally Posted by William May ↗

All good points

HOWEVER: The Nashville shooter was mentally ill and under treatment. Her parents did not know she owned guns, they thought she had sold the one she had previously. Actually, she hid the previously owned gun, and then, because she was not on any mental health exclusion list, wound up buying 5 more weapons.
Legally.
So whatever monitoring or system is already in place, IT IS NOT WORKING.
The simple fact is that a functioning mental health law would have prevented her from ever buying another gun, and might have helped her parents get rid of the one she already had.

I am as Pro2A as you can get. But the idea that the mentally ill should have access to firearms is ludicrous. This is not the first shooting related to mental illness.

This is a simple requirement that would not interfere with ANY regular person's right to own a firearm.

In any case, if things like this keep happening, then the 2A is doomed. A majority of people right now want much further gun control.

If the 2A people don't start working towards an acceptable solution to the mass shooting problem, then one will be imposed. It will probably be FAR WORSE than what you can imagine, possibly even the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

So you need to sit down and ask yourself "Am I willing to do nothing and stand by while the 2A evaporates?"

or "Am I going to do what I can to end this problem, and save 2A and private gun ownership?"

I guess we just disagree on the role of government. I think it’s nobodies (and no system’s) job to decide that any particular sane person who hasn’t broken the law can’t exercise a basic right like RKBA. The fact that a tiny percent of shootings fit the definition of ‘mass’ and get lots of media attention still barely moves the needle on the 1 in 1000 lifetime risk of death by gun homicide we each face. Maybe the best way to stop mass shootings that’s consistent with liberty is to ensure sufficient freedom so that someone there is likely to be armed to put the shooter down.

On the other hand even most pro-2A folks would have little to no opposition to a red flag law that would a) provide due process (and give the person notice and a right to challenge the designation before it takes effect,) b) require the person to actually be dangerous (not just have diagnosis XYZ,) c) have a limited term, d) provide a means for later reversal, and e) do all of this while still protecting medical privacy. Some red flag laws in other states seem in the ballpark, but as a public safety / health matter it’s for each individual state to decide. If gun laws didn’t always seem to ratchet toward civilian disarmament more people might be more willing to compromise on laws like this.

[Crystalette]

Originally Posted by blackman420 ↗

wtf no school shooting vids in the future？？

Exactly. It's still going to happen whether it's shown here or not. School shootings are a REALITY, are they not? Why not change the name to Documenting What We Pick and Choose Here and There?

[Sgt.Reaper]

Look at this little bastard. Probably got punished by his mommy the night before and thought it would be a good idea to throw his life away the next day.