No guns for you!I have one of each.
Ex wife #1- Crazy as ****. Ex wife #2- Cant stand me at all.
No guns for you!I have one of each.
Ex wife #1- Crazy as ****. Ex wife #2- Cant stand me at all.
I've heard so much conflicting information so far that the timeline posted is probably not reliable for anything other than showing that the cops did not perform as expected.I'm going to need a cite about the states not notifying the FBI, I think I've heard about that happening in one shooting like this and it wasn't a state that didn't notify it was iirc the Army.
7 cops in the building 2 minutes after he entered the school. If the timeline is correct, which honestly I have my doubts.
FIFY…I wouldn’t make up your mind about what actually happened until the coverup is complete
And we will get accurate info after the investigation? If yes you have more faith in the system than I…Why would anyone expect accurate information at this stage? We all know how unreliable reports are about anything in the early days after an event.
Yeah, but they have the top men from the FBI on the caseAnd we will get accurate info after the investigation? If yes you have more faith in the system than I…
Well…with school about to let out for the summer and (I assume) no school board meetings for awhile, those agents need to be kept busy doing something.Yeah, but they have the top men from the FBI on the case
Too many people using “information” for ideological purposes.And we will get accurate info after the investigation? If yes you have more faith in the system than I…
I'm going to need a cite about the states not notifying the FBI, I think I've heard about that happening in one shooting like this and it wasn't a state that didn't notify it was iirc the Army.
While I would prefer this to what is currently in effect. I'm more along the lines of if they aren't currently locked up... or to put it another way, No free man shall be disbarred the use of arms.I'd say no. I don't think background checks were ever a solution to violent crime with firearms. I think if we're gonna play games trying to predict who's gonna be violent, let's try to be more accurate, like I said in the previous post.
No more arbitrary criteria that prohibits whole classes of people as groups. If people are going to lose rights it should be as an individual, and there needs to be a way to restore those rights. So maybe have a database of people who have been judged by a court as having lost their right to own firearms. And then you fight it in court if you think you don't deserve to be on that list.
Why place them anywhere? I know quite a few people that have mental issues, and some of them own firearms. I don't have a problem with it.I was merely bringing up the difficulty regarding the placing of people who may have mental issues that don't rise to the immediate threat to self or others.
Let me rephrase it a bit. How many of these shooters were prohibited persons and should have been reported to nics and were not?This has been going on since nics started what, 20+ years ago. If your waiting for a cite for that, load a cooler and bring it and a stand and pee, it will be awhile.
More than one, and that for me,Let me rephrase it a bit. How many of these shooters were prohibited persons and should have been reported to nics and were not?
While I would prefer this to what is currently in effect. I'm more along the lines of if they aren't currently locked up... or to put it another way, No free man shall be disbarred the use of arms.
Only one I know of, was the military that didn't report it. I've heard of no others let alone multiple. As I stated there are more iirc that bought them in a private sale, should those be banned? I know of some where they stole them, if it's more than one shouldn't ownership be banned?More than one, and that for me,
would be too many.
Im truly not that interested in the exact number, if you are Google away my friend.
My suspicion is that to release all the info would involve discussing the m249b, where it came from and why he had one.Really. Why can’t the all the facts learned in the Los Vegas shooting be released? All of it.
Without losing sight of the larger perspective that most who are violent are not mentally ill, and most of the mentally ill are not violent, our message is that mental health providers, lawyers and the public should be made aware that some unmedicated patients do pose an increased risk of violence," wrote researchers led by Dr. Ira Glick, from Stanford University's School of Medicine.Only one I know of, was the military that didn't report it. I've heard of no others let alone multiple. As I stated there are more iirc that bought them in a private sale, should those be banned? I know of some where they stole them, if it's more than one shouldn't ownership be banned?
So what should be done? Should anyone who is seeking treatment become a prohibited person? How many of those were adjudicated mentally defective? Which as I understand is what is required to be placed on the prohibited list.Without losing sight of the larger perspective that most who are violent are not mentally ill, and most of the mentally ill are not violent, our message is that mental health providers, lawyers and the public should be made aware that some unmedicated patients do pose an increased risk of violence," wrote researchers led by Dr. Ira Glick, from Stanford University's School of Medicine.
Glick's team studied 35 mass shooting cases that occurred in the United States between 1982 and 2019 and involved shooters who survived and were brought to trial.
Analysis of various sources of medical evidence on the mass shooters showed that 28 had mental illness diagnoses. Eighteen had schizophrenia and 10 had other diagnoses including bipolar disorder, delusional disorder, personality disorders and substance-related disorders.
Of the 28 shooters with a mental illness diagnosis, none were medicated or received other treatment for their disorders prior to their crimes, according to the study published recently in the Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology.
Glick and his colleagues also examined 20 mass shooters who died at the crime scene and found that eight had schizophrenia, seven had other mental health diagnoses, and five had unknown diagnoses. None were receiving appropriate medications.
The investigators pointed out that despite the high frequency of mass shooting events in the United States, there has been almost no medical research on the nature and incidence of mental illness among people who commit these crimes.
For Christ Sake Man, give it a rest.So what should be done? Should anyone who is seeking treatment become a prohibited person? How many of those were adjudicated mentally defective? Which as I understand is what is required to be placed on the prohibited list.
If you have a child who has been diagnosed with a mental illness, should you be prohibited from owning firearms? How about a spouse? Have friends that come over that have been diagnosed?
... I'm more along the lines of if they aren't currently locked up... or to put it another way, No free man shall be disbarred the use of arms.
...