Oh, there are things we can do, they just have no interest in doing them. When people think someone is a problem, there needs to be a way to get an evaluation like you can with abuse and CPS. yes, it can be abused and overreached, but right now there is NOTHING you can do. Even someone seeking help for themselves has nothing available.

Our neighbor 2 doors down is elderly and has completely lost it. I don't know if he had a stroke, or if the cancer he had a few years ago is back and in his brain, or alzeimers, or what. But he comes out of the house and howls, comes out and screams curses at kids, accused the mom next door of hitting him......a total 180 from what used to be a nice and pleasant man. And there is NOTHING I can do. I've called APS and they will do nothing since he isn't abused. I've called the sheriff's dept and there is nothing they can do. I've tried mobile outreach, there is nothing they can do. God knows what could happen-he's only a few houses away from an elementary school. He lives alone and is estranged from his only daughter. THIS is the problem that needs a solution.

The solution is forced commitment, but the people who brought that practice mostly to an end will never admit to that mistake?

Want to keep guns out of the hands of psychos? Institutionalize them and leave the rest of us alone.

" Institutionalize them and leave the rest of us alone."

As Governors Ronald Reagan and Brown discovered, it's cheaper for the state to turn them loose on the taxpayers and let the blood flow where it may.

The whoopsie-daisy article from 1984:

http://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/30/science/how-release-of-mental-patients-began.html?pagewanted=all

And there is NOTHING I can do.

Have you tried, oh, I dunno, talking to him? that maybe pointless if he's that addled. But it would be something.

If not you, who?
If not now, when?

So the big brave "executive action" that Biden promised us has been relased, and there's... nothing really. Mostly just restatements of stuff that's already law. To paraphrase Hendrix: "Hey Joe, where ya going' with nothing in your hand?"

Cousin Dave: I once went to a wedding where the guitar player from the band did a solo rendition of Hey Joe. I was just speechless but nobody else seemed to notice how inappropriate it was.

It seems like a lot of proposed gun violence solutions have kind of a "bell the cat" assumption underlying them -- good on paper, but not terribly practical in application.

Example: Assault weapons ban: Assuming we can agree on what that term actually means (Large magazine? Scary-looking pistol grip? Sem--automatic action?), somebody's actually got to go out and find, register, or confiscate the things. I'm not volunteering to do it. You?

Another example: Let's re-institutionalize the crazy people who'll shoot up public areas. Does modern psychiatry have the predictive power to identify, with only minimal error, who's likely to do that? Otherwise, we'll have to live with locking up people who are harmless. Crazy but harmless. Scary-looking maybe, but harmless. I don't think that's okay.

And then we have to decide what constitutes a dangerous mental illness to begin with. Are we talking about psychotic episodes and hallucinations? Or are we talking about the kid who draws soldiers in the margins of his math paper? Will the basis for this distinction be medical or political? Will we even be able to tell?

Of course, none of what I'm saying is terribly original, but that's my two cents anyway.

Reagan wasn't alone--community based mental health care was all the rage in the mental health services community. But the Aurora shooter was seeing a shrink, who was clearly derelict in her duty to the public. I still don't get why she's not on trial.

Can anyone name ONE law or regulation that has kept an armed criminal/psycho from using their gun?

(Hint: The answer in NO)

"I once went to a wedding where the guitar player from the band did a solo rendition of Hey Joe. "

Wow. Just wow. I was once at a wedding where the happy couple used Foreigner's "Feels Like the First Time" as their wedding music. But that one takes the cake. Sure hope the groom didn't request it.

It's all just more security theater. 290 million guns? It would be like Germany in 1944 outlawing Americans from immigrating into Germany. Let's enact a new law!

Don't miss the opportunity to say this out loud wherever you go:

The Newton Massacre is what you get when you forbid the law-abiding from being armed.

The Newton Massacre is what you get when you forbid the law-abiding from being armed.

I'm not opposed to having armed security guards in schools or letting teachers & administrators have guns. However, having good people armed doesn't prevent massacres. As I noted here in a thread a few weeks ago, a guy killed four cops in a coffee shop in a Tacoma suburb two years ago and all four of them were armed (and were, presumably, well-trained in using their guns....more than a teacher would be.)

How was he able to kill four cops at once? With of, course, a gun. He wouldn't have been able to do that with a knife or a baseball bat. When someone decides to violently attack other people, their use of a gun greatly increases the degree of the ensuing carnage.

So, JD - tell the rest of the story.

Who would have been disarmed by more restrictions on the law-abiding?

There's lots of magical thinking around this. How many data sets do you need to produce results?

By the way - I can suggest several ways to kill four police officers at one time without a gun - especially those unaware of an imminent threat.

Given this citation of yours - it isn't really an example of anything - I think you should be forbidden to drive a powerful car. Those are only made to elude and kill police.

Give yours up now. You have no right to a car.

While we're going on about this, I can't help but note that if you cannot recognize the difference between 1970's America and today, you don't have a clue about how gun possession became a sign of homicidal mania to some poor deluded saps.

We already have to have POLICE in SCHOOL BUILDINGS, and we even pretend they are something else, because people are encouraged to shift blame, shirk responsibility, go with the flow, do it if it feels right, etc., and this somehow manifested as a system that must treat the thug and the valedictorian the same.

How many armed guards couldn't prevent Kennedy from getting shot? And this is the c*cks*cking CIA!!!!

A better question....if my child hits your child with a rock, do we then give every child in the school yard a rock? Or, do we just say the hell with it and give em all pepper spray?

An even better question.....why is the answer to the insane levels of gun violence in the States to get more guns?!?!?!

More guns in the hands of law abiding citizens equals to that many more guns being stolen by the schizo's and being turned on you.

Just sayin....

How many armed guards couldn't prevent Kennedy from getting shot? And this is the c*cks*cking CIA!!!! -- wtf at January 16, 2013 6:26 PM

A couple of questions:

Which Kennedy? Either, both?

WTF are you talking about the CIA for? Are you blaming the CIA for the Kennedy assassinations?

I'm putting any future response to you in the same need to respond to Alex Jones of InfoWars infamy. Absolutely fucking zero.

I'm not opposed to having armed security guards in schools or letting teachers & administrators have guns. However, having good people armed doesn't prevent massacres. As I noted here in a thread a few weeks ago, a guy killed four cops in a coffee shop in a Tacoma suburb two years ago and all four of them were armed (and were, presumably, well-trained in using their guns....more than a teacher would be.) -- JD at January 16, 2013 5:23 PM

I take it you are referring to the Lakewood, WA police officer shooting. The Wiki description has the four officers seated at a table and working on laptops. There was no obvious threat when the shooting started. Even then, one officer starting from zero was still able to wound the suspect.

The "were, presumably, well-trained in using their guns" is a big assumption. There are many police that will only fire their weapons once a year for the annual qualification.

Additionally -- most times a CCW/CHL will fire maybe two-three rounds and make sure of the target. Meanwhile in the Empire State Shooting there were two dead and nine wounded with sixteen rounds fired.

How was he able to kill four cops at once? With of, course, a gun. He wouldn't have been able to do that with a knife or a baseball bat. When someone decides to violently attack other people, their use of a gun greatly increases the degree of the ensuing carnage. -- JD at January 16, 2013 5:23 PM

Do you happen to remember the Oklahoma City bombing that occurred on April 19, 1995 and killed 160 people? Where was the gun?

> nobody else seemed to notice how
> inappropriate it was.

These things happen.

> But the Aurora shooter was seeing a shrink, who
> was clearly derelict in her duty to the public.

Not to argue, sincerely curious: Why "clearly?" Did he talk about violent plans or even fantasies? I'm not sure what it would take to get a conviction.

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/08/02/accused-theater-shooters-psychiatrist-warned-colleagues-of-possible-danger/

"The university psychiatrist who was examining accused movie-theater shooter James Holmes found his behavior so erratic that she brought it to the attention of a group that measures the possibility of violent campus threats.

Dr. Lynne Fenton, who treated Holmes earlier this year, notified her colleagues at the University of Colorado’s Behavioral Evaluation and Threat Assessment Team (BETA) that Holmes could constitute a threat to others, Denver’s KMGH-TV reported on Thursday. Citing unnamed sources, the station reported that Fenton brought up concerns about Holmes to several members of the BETA team, who are experts on threatening behavio"

"How was he able to kill four cops at once? With of, course, a gun."

Sounds like just the functionality you want and need when four attackers enter your home. And yes, it happens.

"More guns in the hands of law abiding citizens equals to that many more guns being stolen by the schizo's and being turned on you."

There's another person bereft of education.

Concealed carry permit policies, for one instance, have put thousands of guns on the street legally. In NOT ONE CASE where a state or locality adopted this policy has what you claim occurred. The raw number of guns in public possession has gone up over the years, but the "schizo" incident rate isn't correlated or caused by this.

You have a motive other than the facts pushing you. You should examine that.

Try not to be paralyzed with fear - if you go outside today in such a place, you will pass a person with a carry permit who has her gun with her.

If you do NOT live in such a place, the gun will still be concealed, but the holder will more likely be a criminal. Meanwhile, you will be prohibited from defending yourself.

Doesn't that feel good?

"How was he able to kill four cops at once? With of, course, a gun."

Yes, that's right, he ambushed them.

Now imagine if they had heard him shooting 50 yards away and had time to draw their weapons, like in Newtown, where the adults ran to the sound of the commotion.

Unfortunately, schools are gun-free zones, or as crazies call them, "target-rich environments".

Too bad for the families that the cowardly people created a killing zone for the killer's amusement.

Another School Shooting, Another Psychiatric Drug? Federal Investigation Long Overdue

Fact: Despite 22 international drug regulatory warnings on psychiatric drugs citing effects of mania, hostility, violence and even homicidal ideation, and dozens of high profile shootings/killings tied to psychiatric drug use, there has yet to be a federal investigation on the link between psychiatric drugs and acts of senseless violence.

Fact: At least fourteen recent school shootings were committed by those taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs resulting in 109 wounded and 58 killed (in other school shootings, information about their drug use was never made public—neither confirming or refuting if they were under the influence of prescribed drugs.)

Fact: Between 2004 and 2011, there have been over 11,000 reports to the U.S. FDA’s MedWatch system of psychiatric drug side effects related to violence. These include 300 cases of homicide, nearly 3,000 cases of mania and over 7,000 cases of aggression. Note: By the FDA’s own admission, only 1-10% of side effects are ever reported to the FDA, so the actual number of side effects occurring are most certainly higher.

http://www.cchrint.org/2012/07/20/the-aurora-colorado-tragedy-another-senseless-shooting-another-psychotropic-drug/

Radwaste: Who would have been disarmed by more restrictions on the law-abiding?

Restrictions? I'm not in favor of restrictions. It says "shall not be infringed" in the 2nd. I think law-abiding citizens should be able to own weapons that are incredibly destructive and lethal, any weapons they want and can afford. If some of those law-abiding citizens happen to get really pissed off and end up slaughtering a huge number of their fellow law-abiding citizens with their destructive and lethal weapons well, that's just the price we have to pay for keeping true to the 2nd. I'm just pointing out that the more destructive and lethal the weapon is, the greater degree of the carnage.

*

JimP: Do you happen to remember the Oklahoma City bombing that occurred on April 19, 1995 and killed 160 people? Where was the gun?

Of course, and thank you. All you did was help to make my point: the more destructive and lethal the weapon is, the greater degree of the carnage.

*

Me: "How was he able to kill four cops at once? With of, course, a gun."

Gog: Yes, that's right, he ambushed them.

Indeed he did. And if he had ambushed them with a knife, or a baseball bat, he wouldn't have been able to kill all four of them.

Now imagine if they had heard him shooting 50 yards away and had time to draw their weapons, like in Newtown, where the adults ran to the sound of the commotion.

As I said above, I'm not opposed to having armed security guards in schools or letting teachers & administrators have guns. But even if we end up having that, an angry/crazy person with a gun (or guns) is still going to be able to murder a lot more kids than he would be able to do with a knife or a baseball bat before he, in turn, is killed.

"I think law-abiding citizens should be able to own weapons that are incredibly destructive and lethal, any weapons they want and can afford. If some of those law-abiding citizens happen to get really pissed off and end up slaughtering a huge number of their fellow law-abiding citizens with their destructive and lethal weapons well, that's just the price we have to pay for keeping true to the 2nd."

"Destructive and lethal weapons"? You mean, like the Colt .45 Auto, one hundred and two years old? "Assault" weapons (can you name a weapon that isn't one?) - descended from the StG44, almost seventy years old?

You, sir or madam, are simply a liar, whatever your motivation. Crawl back inside your home, where you may pretend that a uniform automatically confers superior powers of morality, jurisprudence and marksmanship, and that the same person becomes a slaughtering machine if they are allowed to carry the American army's sidearm when out of uniform.

Don't let it trouble your pretty little brow how it is that we trusted our neighbors once upon a time. Call the police on them. Their shades are up and you might see their underwear.

The JDean Utopia: the TSA has guns, and the people must do what they say everywhere.

Everywhere.

The gun isn't magic, except for two things: 1) A gun identifies a member of the ruling class. 2) A gun identifies a person who has read a history book.

Who are you? Why, one of the many shrieking at the idea that they might have to be responsible, or hold their fellow man responsible.
Not a citizen. A citizen exercises the responsibilities commensurate with their rights.

Take the test.

I bet you cannot be honest with yourself.

JimP: Do you happen to remember the Oklahoma City bombing that occurred on April 19, 1995 and killed 160 people? Where was the gun?

Of course, and thank you. All you did was help to make my point: the more destructive and lethal the weapon is, the greater degree of the carnage.

As I said above, I'm not opposed to having armed security guards in schools or letting teachers & administrators have guns. But even if we end up having that, an angry/crazy person with a gun (or guns) is still going to be able to murder a lot more kids than he would be able to do with a knife or a baseball bat before he, in turn, is killed. -- JD at January 17, 2013 5:57 PM

That answers what reality you are coming from. You would wish to destroy every single firearm.

The problem is that the genie has escaped the bottle; the air is out of the tire; the fish has slipped the hook; the stripper is naked; the emperor has no clothes.

I know the rough formulation for black powder; I know the idea of making bullets or musket rounds. I know the makings of Napalm® and several other incendiaries.

Back when the Constitution was written the musket was a household item. There was more than one gentleman that carried a brace of pistols. You are blaming the weapon for it's expediency. Does the person that committed the act hold any responsibility?

"Indeed he did. And if he had ambushed them with a knife, or a baseball bat, he wouldn't have been able to kill all four of them. "

How about a wet towel? Or a piece of pie? Hamsters?

" I'm not opposed to having armed security guards in schools or letting teachers & administrators have guns."

Ah, I get it now. Government People will keep us safe.

In any case, I'm sure you'll be the first to help the police go door to door to confiscate our firearms. Do you have a name for that campaign yet? I think kristallnacht has already been used, you'll need to come up with a new one.

Better strap on the jackboots and get started. You're going to need to forcibly take a couple of hundred million guns.

Founding Father Tench Coxe explains . . .

"The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people."

* The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

* "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.

The Federalist Papers : No. 46, James Madison . . .

"The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism.

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."

And regarding the :"Bill of Rights", which don't grant us any rights but instead restrict the government while the people retain all rights, Alexander Hamilton's prediction on the danger of a Bill of Rights has come true . . .

The Federalist Papers : No. 84

Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered
From McLEAN's Edition, New York.
HAMILTON

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."