Breaking: Several killed and wounded at Washington DC Navy Yard

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: Breaking: Several killed and wounded at Washington DC Navy Yard

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to UserName9's comment:

     

    In response to DamainAllen's comment:

     

     

    The dead shooter has been identified as Aaron Alexis of Fort Worth Texas

     

     




    He is believed to have a criminal record there and to be a holder of a concealed carry weapon permit.

     

     



    Could you provide the link to said info?

     


    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/2013/09/16/police-responding-reported-shooter-navy-yard/g1EytWmP3pruo7fpVbMkjI/story.html

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Breaking: Several killed and wounded at Washington DC Navy Yard

    Thanks. We'll see if this is ultimately true.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Breaking: Several killed and wounded at Washington DC Navy Yard

    Folks a dozen of our fellow citizens were murdered ... I don't know how many injuried ..... can we wait to find out the facts before we start to place blame on anyone or anything

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from UserName9. Show UserName9's posts

    Re: Breaking: Several killed and wounded at Washington DC Navy Yard

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    Thanks. We'll see if this is ultimately true.




    http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/09/16/5167160/fort-worth-man-accused-in-washington.html

    This one goes into more details.  Sounds like he may have been masturbating cleaning with his gun and accidentally fired it into the upstairs apartment.  This being Texas, it was found to be common so they didn't press any chages.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Breaking: Several killed and wounded at Washington DC Navy Yard

    In response to UserName9's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    Thanks. We'll see if this is ultimately true.

     




    http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/09/16/5167160/fort-worth-man-accused-in-washington.html

     

    This one goes into more details.  Sounds like he may have been masturbating cleaning with his gun and accidentally fired it into the upstairs apartment.  This being Texas, it was found to be common so they didn't press any chages.

    [/QUOTE]

    Masturbating? Is that what you do with your guns? Seems an odd thing but hey....whatever floats your boat man.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Breaking: Several killed and wounded at Washington DC Navy Yard

    In response to UserName9's comment:


    Best to wait until there are facts to comment on.  There will be fact free reports all afternoon for people to speculate on. 

    If you recall the marathon day, there were reports of an explosion at Umass. 




    I agree and the facts are for sure unfolding. I was in the waiting room of my doctor's office when I was first hearing about it. Hopped on Twittter for some updates from all the news media I follow..was amazed to see how much was retracted. People rush and accuracy suffers.

    I feel sadness yet again for the people who lost their lives in yet another senseless act of violence. It seems these types of things are happening more and more.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Breaking: Several killed and wounded at Washington DC Navy Yard

    I

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Breaking: Several killed and wounded at Washington DC Navy Yard

    The typical politicians are seizing the moment to try and get political gain to infringe on gun rights!

    They ignore the reports that the gunman enterewd with only a shotgun and picked up the other weapons inside the navy yard!

    Authorities investigating Monday’s D.C. shooting spree believe the gunman brought a shotgun, legally purchased from a suburban Virginia gun shop, to the Navy Yard and acquired additional weapons at the scene, according to three law enforcement officials.

    The officials said Aaron Alexis of Fort Worth, Texas, a 34-year-old discharged Navy engineer, entered the building with a Remington 870 12-gauge shotgun that he’d purchased last week in Lorton, Va., and was later found with two additional weapons, a Glock handgun and an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle.

    One scenario authorities were investigating was that he obtained the handgun and the rifle at the scene, possibly from victims.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Breaking: Several killed and wounded at Washington DC Navy Yard

    Gun rights are one thing.

    But allowing a PTSD-afflicted former soldier with demonstrated mental illness (and military training) a concealed weapons permit seems like an invitation for trouble.

    (Not that denying the permit would have definitely changed the outcome, but it would have added another barrier, albeit a porous, poorly enforced one.)

     

    My only personal hope is that this tragedy highlights the issue of diagnosing and treating mental illnesses as an absolutely necessary function of both the national and VA health care systems (and occupational therapy in general for civilians).

     

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Breaking: Several killed and wounded at Washington DC Navy Yard

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    Gun rights are one thing.

    But allowing a PTSD-afflicted former soldier with demonstrated mental illness (and military training) to carry a concealed weapon seems like an invitation for trouble.

     

    My only personal hope is that this tragedy highlights the issue of diagnosing and treating mental illnesses as an absolutely necessary function of both the national and VA health care systems (and occupational therapy in general for civilians).

     



    Well...when mental illness isn't reported it's awfully hard to use it as a reason to keep guns out of his hands...

    Alexis had been suffering a host of serious mental problems, including paranoia and a sleep disorder, and had been hearing voices in his head, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the criminal investigation was still going on.

    He had been treated since August by Veterans Affairs, the officials said.

    The Navy had not declared him mentally unfit, which would have rescinded a security clearance Alexis had from his earlier time in the Navy Reserves.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Breaking: Several killed and wounded at Washington DC Navy Yard

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

     

    Gun rights are one thing.

    But allowing a PTSD-afflicted former soldier with demonstrated mental illness (and military training) to carry a concealed weapon seems like an invitation for trouble.

     

    My only personal hope is that this tragedy highlights the issue of diagnosing and treating mental illnesses as an absolutely necessary function of both the national and VA health care systems (and occupational therapy in general for civilians).

     

     

     



    Well...when mental illness isn't reported it's awfully hard to use it as a reason to keep guns out of his hands...

     

     

    Alexis had been suffering a host of serious mental problems, including paranoia and a sleep disorder, and had been hearing voices in his head, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the criminal investigation was still going on.

    He had been treated since August by Veterans Affairs, the officials said.

    The Navy had not declared him mentally unfit, which would have rescinded a security clearance Alexis had from his earlier time in the Navy Reserves.

     



    Good point.

     

    And which is why I emphasized the "diagnosis" part.  It's widely known that soldiers/military are held to a different standard of proof than the rest of us.

    This report - if true - combined with gun-related run-ins with the law - again, if true - should have perhaps been consolidated into a profile that objectively deemed him unfit for the privilege of carrying a deadly weapon.

    Then, perhaps that determination could have landed him in a database maintained by appropriate law enforcement officials for the purpose of informing lawful gun sellers of undesirable purchasers.

    Ergo, a background check.

     

    This is the process part of the gun rights argument.  If everyone can agree that mental defectives should not have easy access to guns, then the questions are really about process: what we do and how we do it.

     

    P.S. Is "security clearance" a criteria for gun ownership?  I'm not sure if it is or not....

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Breaking: Several killed and wounded at Washington DC Navy Yard

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    Gun rights are one thing.

    But allowing a PTSD-afflicted former soldier with demonstrated mental illness (and military training) to carry a concealed weapon seems like an invitation for trouble.

     

    My only personal hope is that this tragedy highlights the issue of diagnosing and treating mental illnesses as an absolutely necessary function of both the national and VA health care systems (and occupational therapy in general for civilians).

     

     

     



    Well...when mental illness isn't reported it's awfully hard to use it as a reason to keep guns out of his hands...

     

     

    Alexis had been suffering a host of serious mental problems, including paranoia and a sleep disorder, and had been hearing voices in his head, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the criminal investigation was still going on.

    He had been treated since August by Veterans Affairs, the officials said.

    The Navy had not declared him mentally unfit, which would have rescinded a security clearance Alexis had from his earlier time in the Navy Reserves.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Good point.

     

    And which is why I emphasized the "diagnosis" part.  It's widely known that soldiers/military are held to a different standard of proof than the rest of us.

    This report - if true - combined with gun-related run-ins with the law - again, if true - should have perhaps been consolidated into a profile that objectively deemed him unfit for the privilege of carrying a deadly weapon.

    Then, perhaps that determination could have landed him in a database maintained by appropriate law enforcement officials for the purpose of informing lawful gun sellers of undesirable purchasers.

    Ergo, a background check.

     

    This is the process part of the gun rights argument.  If everyone can agree that mental defectives should not have easy access to guns, then the questions are really about process: what we do and how we do it.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    According to what I've read about the gun run-in is that he was never convicted. Unless someone has a record then you can do all the background checks you want. Nothing will come up therefore you will not be denied a gun.

    Same thing with mental health issues. The background checks are only as good as the info that's out there. No info...no denying a gun.

     

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Breaking: Several killed and wounded at Washington DC Navy Yard

    Well this kind of changes the anti gun narrative that was building over this mental health induced tragedy.  

    No AR-15,

    No semiautomatic pistols

    The gunman shows up with a shut gun, and takes the pistols from security.

    This isn't a concealed carry permit issue.

    It's a mental health issue.

     

     

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Law enforcement officials say the Navy contractor identified as the gunman in the deadly shootings at the Washington Navy Yard used a shotgun and two handguns, but not an AR-15 assault rifle, as officials previously said.

    Two law enforcement officials told The Associated Press that an AR-15 was found at the scene. One of them said Tuesday that Alexis did not use that weapon in the shootings. It was not immediately clear whether the rifle belonged to a law enforcement or security officer responding to the gun battle. The official said Tuesday the guns that Alexis used included a shotgun he had purchased and two handguns that he took away from law enforcement officer at the scene.

    ...the man who really counts in the world is the doer,...  TR 1891

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Breaking: Several killed and wounded at Washington DC Navy Yard

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    Gun rights are one thing.

    But allowing a PTSD-afflicted former soldier with demonstrated mental illness (and military training) to carry a concealed weapon seems like an invitation for trouble.

     

    My only personal hope is that this tragedy highlights the issue of diagnosing and treating mental illnesses as an absolutely necessary function of both the national and VA health care systems (and occupational therapy in general for civilians).

     

     

     

     



    Well...when mental illness isn't reported it's awfully hard to use it as a reason to keep guns out of his hands...

     

     

     

    Alexis had been suffering a host of serious mental problems, including paranoia and a sleep disorder, and had been hearing voices in his head, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the criminal investigation was still going on.

    He had been treated since August by Veterans Affairs, the officials said.

    The Navy had not declared him mentally unfit, which would have rescinded a security clearance Alexis had from his earlier time in the Navy Reserves.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Good point.

     

     

    And which is why I emphasized the "diagnosis" part.  It's widely known that soldiers/military are held to a different standard of proof than the rest of us.

    This report - if true - combined with gun-related run-ins with the law - again, if true - should have perhaps been consolidated into a profile that objectively deemed him unfit for the privilege of carrying a deadly weapon.

    Then, perhaps that determination could have landed him in a database maintained by appropriate law enforcement officials for the purpose of informing lawful gun sellers of undesirable purchasers.

    Ergo, a background check.

     

    This is the process part of the gun rights argument.  If everyone can agree that mental defectives should not have easy access to guns, then the questions are really about process: what we do and how we do it.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    According to what I've read about the gun run-in is that he was never convicted. Unless someone has a record then you can do all the background checks you want. Nothing will come up therefore you will not be denied a gun.

     

    Same thing with mental health issues. The background checks are only as good as the info that's out there. No info...no denying a gun.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I can concede the point about the conviction, if that's indeed the criteria for a flag signalling the FBI.

    But in a matter of hours, didn't we learn everything we might need to know to make an informed decision?  Maybe...maybe not.

    So, then, how much of our questionable activities should be reported?  Even lacking a conviction, wouldn't the police log be preserved somewhere for someone to pull up on a check...?

     

    I'm trying not to be facetious here.  Nothing will bring back the people this guy killed.  But I fail to see how it's not in the interest to do everything humanly possible to prevent it in the future.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Breaking: Several killed and wounded at Washington DC Navy Yard

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

    Gun rights are one thing.

    But allowing a PTSD-afflicted former soldier with demonstrated mental illness (and military training) to carry a concealed weapon seems like an invitation for trouble.

     

    My only personal hope is that this tragedy highlights the issue of diagnosing and treating mental illnesses as an absolutely necessary function of both the national and VA health care systems (and occupational therapy in general for civilians).

     

     

     

     

     



    Well...when mental illness isn't reported it's awfully hard to use it as a reason to keep guns out of his hands...

     

     

     

     

    Alexis had been suffering a host of serious mental problems, including paranoia and a sleep disorder, and had been hearing voices in his head, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the criminal investigation was still going on.

    He had been treated since August by Veterans Affairs, the officials said.

    The Navy had not declared him mentally unfit, which would have rescinded a security clearance Alexis had from his earlier time in the Navy Reserves.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Good point.

     

     

     

    And which is why I emphasized the "diagnosis" part.  It's widely known that soldiers/military are held to a different standard of proof than the rest of us.

    This report - if true - combined with gun-related run-ins with the law - again, if true - should have perhaps been consolidated into a profile that objectively deemed him unfit for the privilege of carrying a deadly weapon.

    Then, perhaps that determination could have landed him in a database maintained by appropriate law enforcement officials for the purpose of informing lawful gun sellers of undesirable purchasers.

    Ergo, a background check.

     

    This is the process part of the gun rights argument.  If everyone can agree that mental defectives should not have easy access to guns, then the questions are really about process: what we do and how we do it.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    According to what I've read about the gun run-in is that he was never convicted. Unless someone has a record then you can do all the background checks you want. Nothing will come up therefore you will not be denied a gun.

     

     

    Same thing with mental health issues. The background checks are only as good as the info that's out there. No info...no denying a gun.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I can concede the point about the conviction, if that's indeed the criteria for a flag signalling the FBI.

     

    But in a matter of hours, didn't we learn everything we might need to know to make an informed decision?  Maybe...maybe not.

    So, then, how much of our questionable activities should be reported?  Even lacking a conviction, wouldn't the police log be preserved somewhere for someone to pull up on a check...?

     

    I'm trying not to be facetious here.  Nothing will bring back the people this guy killed.  But I fail to see how it's not in the interest to do everything humanly possible to prevent it in the future.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I for one believe if someone isn't convicted for what they were arrested for then it shouldn't be held against them. If you get in an argument with your wife and to get back at you she decides to call police and say you hit her, then they arrest you, but then she comes clean and drops charges. Should that arrest be held against you? I would say not. 

    We ca only go by what one was arrested and convicted for. Otherwise they have every right you do. Someone can be batsh!t crazy but unless it's documented in a database then they have every right to get a gun. Look, the system isn't perfect, no system rarely is, but if we head down the road of denying rights based on arrests and not convictions then I think that's a bad thing.

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Breaking: Several killed and wounded at Washington DC Navy Yard

    This guy was being "treated" for mental illness.

    The common thread through many of these mass shootings is the treatment of mental illness with very strong psychiatric meds.

    Meds work for some people, no question........but use of strong psychiatric medications is a crapshoot, for some people they have the opposite effect and put them way over the edge.

     

     

      

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Breaking: Several killed and wounded at Washington DC Navy Yard

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

    Gun rights are one thing.

    But allowing a PTSD-afflicted former soldier with demonstrated mental illness (and military training) to carry a concealed weapon seems like an invitation for trouble.

     

    My only personal hope is that this tragedy highlights the issue of diagnosing and treating mental illnesses as an absolutely necessary function of both the national and VA health care systems (and occupational therapy in general for civilians).

     

     

     

     

     



    Well...when mental illness isn't reported it's awfully hard to use it as a reason to keep guns out of his hands...

     

     

     

     

    Alexis had been suffering a host of serious mental problems, including paranoia and a sleep disorder, and had been hearing voices in his head, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the criminal investigation was still going on.

    He had been treated since August by Veterans Affairs, the officials said.

    The Navy had not declared him mentally unfit, which would have rescinded a security clearance Alexis had from his earlier time in the Navy Reserves.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Good point.

     

     

     

    And which is why I emphasized the "diagnosis" part.  It's widely known that soldiers/military are held to a different standard of proof than the rest of us.

    This report - if true - combined with gun-related run-ins with the law - again, if true - should have perhaps been consolidated into a profile that objectively deemed him unfit for the privilege of carrying a deadly weapon.

    Then, perhaps that determination could have landed him in a database maintained by appropriate law enforcement officials for the purpose of informing lawful gun sellers of undesirable purchasers.

    Ergo, a background check.

     

    This is the process part of the gun rights argument.  If everyone can agree that mental defectives should not have easy access to guns, then the questions are really about process: what we do and how we do it.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    According to what I've read about the gun run-in is that he was never convicted. Unless someone has a record then you can do all the background checks you want. Nothing will come up therefore you will not be denied a gun.

     

     

    Same thing with mental health issues. The background checks are only as good as the info that's out there. No info...no denying a gun.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I can concede the point about the conviction, if that's indeed the criteria for a flag signalling the FBI.

     

    But in a matter of hours, didn't we learn everything we might need to know to make an informed decision?  Maybe...maybe not.

    So, then, how much of our questionable activities should be reported?  Even lacking a conviction, wouldn't the police log be preserved somewhere for someone to pull up on a check...?

     

    I'm trying not to be facetious here.  Nothing will bring back the people this guy killed.  But I fail to see how it's not in the interest to do everything humanly possible to prevent it in the future.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Well I think that the data exists its very retrievable and interconnected; at least for the last 10 years.  Older data is more disparate, less interconnected and harder to retrieve.  Although I can search US Census records back to 1860 and find my great great grand father, but that's another story.

    But the reality may be closer to perceived fiction than we like.  One of my favorite shows is Person of Interest.  In the show there is a super computer that is always looking for terror threats, but it often finds other threats against regular people and they are deemed irrelevant, by the machine.  But Harold Finch the guilt riddled creator of the machine used a back door and now has this irrielevant info sent to him so he can get the bad guys before they hurt innocent people.

    Kind of like the NSA efforts PRISM et al.  NSA most likely has all this data from police logs and criminal charges along with everything else but its deemed irrelvant so it never gets flagged to prevent questionable types from acquiring guns.

    But that's not the point here; as shot guns are easy to come by, in fact its VP Biden's weapon of choice.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Breaking: Several killed and wounded at Washington DC Navy Yard

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

     

    Gun rights are one thing.

    But allowing a PTSD-afflicted former soldier with demonstrated mental illness (and military training) to carry a concealed weapon seems like an invitation for trouble.

     

    My only personal hope is that this tragedy highlights the issue of diagnosing and treating mental illnesses as an absolutely necessary function of both the national and VA health care systems (and occupational therapy in general for civilians).

     

     

     

     

     

     



    Well...when mental illness isn't reported it's awfully hard to use it as a reason to keep guns out of his hands...

     

     

     

     

     

    Alexis had been suffering a host of serious mental problems, including paranoia and a sleep disorder, and had been hearing voices in his head, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the criminal investigation was still going on.

    He had been treated since August by Veterans Affairs, the officials said.

    The Navy had not declared him mentally unfit, which would have rescinded a security clearance Alexis had from his earlier time in the Navy Reserves.

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Good point.

     

     

     

     

    And which is why I emphasized the "diagnosis" part.  It's widely known that soldiers/military are held to a different standard of proof than the rest of us.

    This report - if true - combined with gun-related run-ins with the law - again, if true - should have perhaps been consolidated into a profile that objectively deemed him unfit for the privilege of carrying a deadly weapon.

    Then, perhaps that determination could have landed him in a database maintained by appropriate law enforcement officials for the purpose of informing lawful gun sellers of undesirable purchasers.

    Ergo, a background check.

     

    This is the process part of the gun rights argument.  If everyone can agree that mental defectives should not have easy access to guns, then the questions are really about process: what we do and how we do it.

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    According to what I've read about the gun run-in is that he was never convicted. Unless someone has a record then you can do all the background checks you want. Nothing will come up therefore you will not be denied a gun.

     

     

     

    Same thing with mental health issues. The background checks are only as good as the info that's out there. No info...no denying a gun.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I can concede the point about the conviction, if that's indeed the criteria for a flag signalling the FBI.

     

     

    But in a matter of hours, didn't we learn everything we might need to know to make an informed decision?  Maybe...maybe not.

    So, then, how much of our questionable activities should be reported?  Even lacking a conviction, wouldn't the police log be preserved somewhere for someone to pull up on a check...?

     

    I'm trying not to be facetious here.  Nothing will bring back the people this guy killed.  But I fail to see how it's not in the interest to do everything humanly possible to prevent it in the future.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I for one believe if someone isn't convicted for what they were arrested for then it shouldn't be held against them. If you get in an argument with your wife and to get back at you she decides to call police and say you hit her, then they arrest you, but then she comes clean and drops charges. Should that arrest be held against you? I would say not. 

     

    We ca only go by what one was arrested and convicted for. Otherwise they have every right you do. Someone can be batsh!t crazy but unless it's documented in a database then they have every right to get a gun. Look, the system isn't perfect, no system rarely is, but if we head down the road of denying rights based on arrests and not convictions then I think that's a bad thing.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    True, but if your wife finds you guilty you'll always be guilty and it will always come back up.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Breaking: Several killed and wounded at Washington DC Navy Yard

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Gun rights are one thing.

    But allowing a PTSD-afflicted former soldier with demonstrated mental illness (and military training) to carry a concealed weapon seems like an invitation for trouble.

     

    My only personal hope is that this tragedy highlights the issue of diagnosing and treating mental illnesses as an absolutely necessary function of both the national and VA health care systems (and occupational therapy in general for civilians).

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    Well...when mental illness isn't reported it's awfully hard to use it as a reason to keep guns out of his hands...

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Alexis had been suffering a host of serious mental problems, including paranoia and a sleep disorder, and had been hearing voices in his head, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the criminal investigation was still going on.

    He had been treated since August by Veterans Affairs, the officials said.

    The Navy had not declared him mentally unfit, which would have rescinded a security clearance Alexis had from his earlier time in the Navy Reserves.

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Good point.

     

     

     

     

     

    And which is why I emphasized the "diagnosis" part.  It's widely known that soldiers/military are held to a different standard of proof than the rest of us.

    This report - if true - combined with gun-related run-ins with the law - again, if true - should have perhaps been consolidated into a profile that objectively deemed him unfit for the privilege of carrying a deadly weapon.

    Then, perhaps that determination could have landed him in a database maintained by appropriate law enforcement officials for the purpose of informing lawful gun sellers of undesirable purchasers.

    Ergo, a background check.

     

    This is the process part of the gun rights argument.  If everyone can agree that mental defectives should not have easy access to guns, then the questions are really about process: what we do and how we do it.

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    According to what I've read about the gun run-in is that he was never convicted. Unless someone has a record then you can do all the background checks you want. Nothing will come up therefore you will not be denied a gun.

     

     

     

     

    Same thing with mental health issues. The background checks are only as good as the info that's out there. No info...no denying a gun.

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I can concede the point about the conviction, if that's indeed the criteria for a flag signalling the FBI.

     

     

     

    But in a matter of hours, didn't we learn everything we might need to know to make an informed decision?  Maybe...maybe not.

    So, then, how much of our questionable activities should be reported?  Even lacking a conviction, wouldn't the police log be preserved somewhere for someone to pull up on a check...?

     

    I'm trying not to be facetious here.  Nothing will bring back the people this guy killed.  But I fail to see how it's not in the interest to do everything humanly possible to prevent it in the future.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I for one believe if someone isn't convicted for what they were arrested for then it shouldn't be held against them. If you get in an argument with your wife and to get back at you she decides to call police and say you hit her, then they arrest you, but then she comes clean and drops charges. Should that arrest be held against you? I would say not. 

     

     

    We ca only go by what one was arrested and convicted for. Otherwise they have every right you do. Someone can be batsh!t crazy but unless it's documented in a database then they have every right to get a gun. Look, the system isn't perfect, no system rarely is, but if we head down the road of denying rights based on arrests and not convictions then I think that's a bad thing.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    True, but if your wife finds you guilty you'll always be guilty and it will always come back up.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Hahaha...so true

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Breaking: Several killed and wounded at Washington DC Navy Yard

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    My only personal hope is that this tragedy highlights the issue of diagnosing and treating mental illnesses as an absolutely necessary function of both the national and VA health care systems (and occupational therapy in general for civilians).

     



    I completely agree!!

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Breaking: Several killed and wounded at Washington DC Navy Yard

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    This guy was being "treated" for mental illness.

    The common thread through many of these mass shootings is the treatment of mental illness with very strong psychiatric meds.

    Meds work for some people, no question........but use of strong psychiatric medications is a crapshoot, for some people they have the opposite effect and put them way over the edge.

     



    I agree and psychiatric meds are very dangerous and imo prescribed way too often in open society!

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Breaking: Several killed and wounded at Washington DC Navy Yard

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    [/QUOTE]

    I agree and psychiatric meds are very dangerous and imo prescribed way too often in open society!

    [/QUOTE]


    Good things you are both psychologists and physicians who are knowledgeable of such matters.

    [/QUOTE]

    You do not have to be formally educated to know psychiatric meds are very dangerous nor do you need to be a physician just, not a total idiot.

    Read a warning label some time!

    Psychiatric Drug Adverse Reactions (Side Effects) and Medication

    Dr. Peter Breggin’s new concept of medication spellbinding provides insights into why so many people take psychiatric drugs when the drugs are doing more harm than good. Psychiatric drugs, and all other drugs that affect the mind, spellbind the individual by masking their adverse mental effects from the individual taking the drugs. If the person experiences a mental side effect, such as anger or sadness, he or she is likely to attribute it to something other than drug, perhaps blaming it on a loved one or on their own “mental illness.” Often people taking psychiatric drugs claim to feel better than ever when in reality their mental life and behavior is impaired. In the extreme, medication spellbinding leads otherwise well-functioning and ethical individuals to commit criminal acts, violence or suicide.  
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Breaking: Several killed and wounded at Washington DC Navy Yard

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

     

    Gun rights are one thing.

    But allowing a PTSD-afflicted former soldier with demonstrated mental illness (and military training) to carry a concealed weapon seems like an invitation for trouble.

     

    My only personal hope is that this tragedy highlights the issue of diagnosing and treating mental illnesses as an absolutely necessary function of both the national and VA health care systems (and occupational therapy in general for civilians).

     

     

     

     

     

     



    Well...when mental illness isn't reported it's awfully hard to use it as a reason to keep guns out of his hands...

     

     

     

     

     

    Alexis had been suffering a host of serious mental problems, including paranoia and a sleep disorder, and had been hearing voices in his head, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the criminal investigation was still going on.

    He had been treated since August by Veterans Affairs, the officials said.

    The Navy had not declared him mentally unfit, which would have rescinded a security clearance Alexis had from his earlier time in the Navy Reserves.

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Good point.

     

     

     

     

    And which is why I emphasized the "diagnosis" part.  It's widely known that soldiers/military are held to a different standard of proof than the rest of us.

    This report - if true - combined with gun-related run-ins with the law - again, if true - should have perhaps been consolidated into a profile that objectively deemed him unfit for the privilege of carrying a deadly weapon.

    Then, perhaps that determination could have landed him in a database maintained by appropriate law enforcement officials for the purpose of informing lawful gun sellers of undesirable purchasers.

    Ergo, a background check.

     

    This is the process part of the gun rights argument.  If everyone can agree that mental defectives should not have easy access to guns, then the questions are really about process: what we do and how we do it.

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    According to what I've read about the gun run-in is that he was never convicted. Unless someone has a record then you can do all the background checks you want. Nothing will come up therefore you will not be denied a gun.

     

     

     

    Same thing with mental health issues. The background checks are only as good as the info that's out there. No info...no denying a gun.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I can concede the point about the conviction, if that's indeed the criteria for a flag signalling the FBI.

     

     

    But in a matter of hours, didn't we learn everything we might need to know to make an informed decision?  Maybe...maybe not.

    So, then, how much of our questionable activities should be reported?  Even lacking a conviction, wouldn't the police log be preserved somewhere for someone to pull up on a check...?

     

    I'm trying not to be facetious here.  Nothing will bring back the people this guy killed.  But I fail to see how it's not in the interest to do everything humanly possible to prevent it in the future.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I for one believe if someone isn't convicted for what they were arrested for then it shouldn't be held against them. If you get in an argument with your wife and to get back at you she decides to call police and say you hit her, then they arrest you, but then she comes clean and drops charges. Should that arrest be held against you? I would say not. 

     

    We ca only go by what one was arrested and convicted for. Otherwise they have every right you do. Someone can be batsh!t crazy but unless it's documented in a database then they have every right to get a gun. Look, the system isn't perfect, no system rarely is, but if we head down the road of denying rights based on arrests and not convictions then I think that's a bad thing.

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Domestic violence issues are thorny enough, and yet the very existence of domestic violence may point to larger violent tendencies.  But to me, someone who's cowardly enough to hit their wife shouldn't be allowed to be married.

    Again, my point is that mental illness is going painfully undiagnosed and untreated...perhaps not because there are more crazy people (possible), but because treatment is less accessible and more expensive than ever.

    I agree with CLC re: the psych meds, too.  This business of prescribing pills and calling it "treatment" without proper follow-up is for the birds.  It's malpractice at its worst.

    And again, we have already decided certain people shouldn't have guns.  If owning a gun is a right, then it's also a privilege that can be revoked if it's abused, just like any other.  What's the use of telling parolees they can't drink or do drugs, but they can have all the guns they like...?

     

     

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from FortySixAndTwo. Show FortySixAndTwo's posts

    Re: Breaking: Several killed and wounded at Washington DC Navy Yard

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

    In response to FortySixAndTwo's comment:

     

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

     

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     

     

     

     

    [QUOTE]

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Gun rights are one thing.

    But allowing a PTSD-afflicted former soldier with demonstrated mental illness (and military training) to carry a concealed weapon seems like an invitation for trouble.

     

    My only personal hope is that this tragedy highlights the issue of diagnosing and treating mental illnesses as an absolutely necessary function of both the national and VA health care systems (and occupational therapy in general for civilians).

     

     

     

     

     

     

     



    Well...when mental illness isn't reported it's awfully hard to use it as a reason to keep guns out of his hands...

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Alexis had been suffering a host of serious mental problems, including paranoia and a sleep disorder, and had been hearing voices in his head, according to the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the criminal investigation was still going on.

    He had been treated since August by Veterans Affairs, the officials said.

    The Navy had not declared him mentally unfit, which would have rescinded a security clearance Alexis had from his earlier time in the Navy Reserves.

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Good point.

     

     

     

     

     

    And which is why I emphasized the "diagnosis" part.  It's widely known that soldiers/military are held to a different standard of proof than the rest of us.

    This report - if true - combined with gun-related run-ins with the law - again, if true - should have perhaps been consolidated into a profile that objectively deemed him unfit for the privilege of carrying a deadly weapon.

    Then, perhaps that determination could have landed him in a database maintained by appropriate law enforcement officials for the purpose of informing lawful gun sellers of undesirable purchasers.

    Ergo, a background check.

     

    This is the process part of the gun rights argument.  If everyone can agree that mental defectives should not have easy access to guns, then the questions are really about process: what we do and how we do it.

     

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    According to what I've read about the gun run-in is that he was never convicted. Unless someone has a record then you can do all the background checks you want. Nothing will come up therefore you will not be denied a gun.

     

     

     

     

    Same thing with mental health issues. The background checks are only as good as the info that's out there. No info...no denying a gun.

     

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I can concede the point about the conviction, if that's indeed the criteria for a flag signalling the FBI.

     

     

     

    But in a matter of hours, didn't we learn everything we might need to know to make an informed decision?  Maybe...maybe not.

    So, then, how much of our questionable activities should be reported?  Even lacking a conviction, wouldn't the police log be preserved somewhere for someone to pull up on a check...?

     

    I'm trying not to be facetious here.  Nothing will bring back the people this guy killed.  But I fail to see how it's not in the interest to do everything humanly possible to prevent it in the future.

     

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    I for one believe if someone isn't convicted for what they were arrested for then it shouldn't be held against them. If you get in an argument with your wife and to get back at you she decides to call police and say you hit her, then they arrest you, but then she comes clean and drops charges. Should that arrest be held against you? I would say not. 

     

     

    We ca only go by what one was arrested and convicted for. Otherwise they have every right you do. Someone can be batsh!t crazy but unless it's documented in a database then they have every right to get a gun. Look, the system isn't perfect, no system rarely is, but if we head down the road of denying rights based on arrests and not convictions then I think that's a bad thing.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    Domestic violence issues are thorny enough, and yet the very existence of domestic violence may point to larger violent tendencies.  But to me, someone who's cowardly enough to hit their wife shouldn't be allowed to be married.

     

    Again, my point is that mental illness is going painfully undiagnosed and untreated...perhaps not because there are more crazy people (possible), but because treatment is less accessible and more expensive than ever.

    I agree with CLC re: the psych meds, too.  This business of prescribing pills and calling it "treatment" without proper follow-up is for the birds.  It's malpractice at its worst.

    And again, we have already decided certain people shouldn't have guns.  If owning a gun is a right, then it's also a privilege that can be revoked if it's abused, just like any other.  What's the use of telling parolees they can't drink or do drugs, but they can have all the guns they like...?

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    And people who have a handgun permits are subject to losing it if certain things happen...like getting arrested and convicted. 

    Someone with a record....like a parollee, wouldn't be eligible to obtain a gun legally. 

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Breaking: Several killed and wounded at Washington DC Navy Yard

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to tvoter's comment:
    [QUOTE]nYou do not have to be formally educated to know psychiatric meds are very dangerous nor do you need to be a physician just, not a total idiot.

    Resorting to insults again, eh?

    [/QUOTE]

    Only if, the shoe fits!

     

Share