Quote of the Day: How’s That Working Out For You? Edition

(courtesy Everytown for Gun Safety)

“We can only stop people who are dangerously mentally ill from buying guns if every gun sale includes a background check. And those background checks will only be effective if states submit the hundreds of thousands of mental health records still missing from the system. Every missing record is another tragedy waiting to happen.” – Closing the Gap; Strengthening the Background Check System to Keep Guns Away from the Dangerously Mentally Ill, produced by Everytown for Gun Safety

comments

  1. avatar Gregolas says:

    And just how does this lame idea affect what happened in Santa Barbra, since this psycho bought his guns legally, i.e. with background checks?

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      The main part of their push is to get nutbars included in NICS, which (OMG!) actually had a chance to stop this event. He passed the checks because his hired professionals did not report him as a threat. If they had, he would not have been able to purchase the guns. It is a very slippery slope, but not as stupid as usual, color me surprised.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Except that denying somebody a right without due process is inherently unconstitutional. A shrink is not due process. The current standard is adjudication. That’s what it should remain. Otherwise, the VA could decide (or be ordered to decide) that every single veteran has a “mental health” issue and should be flagged in NICS.

        1. avatar The Stig says:

          I agree 100%. It must be adjudicated. By liberal definition, anyone who wants to own a gun is crazy.

        2. avatar whatever says:

          If I heard correctly, one out of four adults have sought mental health treatment. Submitting large numbers of poorly-vetted mental health records amounts to a back-door ban.

        3. avatar Davis Thompson says:

          I read the report. They’re only speaking of those who are defined by federal law as mentally unfit. That is adjudicated or involuntarily committed.

          Now, a few flies in the ointment. While their report claims the reporting requirement may have stopped the VA tech shooter, it would not have stopped any of the others. Including Lanza. Including Elliot Rodgers.

          And since Rodgers shows us that alternate weapons can be used just as effectively, the notion that these reporting requirements will significantly reduce mass murder is just silly.

        4. avatar Lazybum says:

          Regarding due process, several states, including CT can confiscate your firearms, with no crime, threatened or actual, being committed. In CT, all you need are two people to declare you a threat and the police will enter your house, and confiscate your firearms.

          From that pint it is up to you to hire a lawyer, take time off for court and try to recover your legally owned firearms.

          All because 2 people do not like you. No due process required to take your firearms, and no compensation for getting them back. And no right to self protection while the police have them.

          Please, no whining when a shrink says you are too nuts to own a gun. Take it to court, jsut like legal gun owners do.

          And, regarding the SB killer, his shrinks should be held accountable for protecting this POS because it spared his parents embarrassment.

      2. avatar Excedrine says:

        Except that it absolutely would not have stopped him from buying guns from another source. Like, at all. Ever. So, no, it’s still pointless.

      3. avatar Xanthro says:

        It’s California, the background check absolutely included all required California Mental Health requirements.

        Seriously, you have an unpaid parking ticket, you fail the California background check.

        His therapist didn’t report his behavior, because it didn’t rise to the level of being reportable until the manifest and video were sent, which was months after he purchased the firearms.

        Had he not gone on his murder spree, the State of California would have paid him a visit because he owned the firearms.

      4. avatar Cliff H says:

        ‘We can only stop people who are dangerously mentally ill from buying guns if…”

        You repeal the Second Amendment.

        I’m sorry, as much as insane people with guns may frighten you (or me), there is no Constitutional way other than repealing or revising the Second Amendment that gives the government, and ESPECIALLY the federal government, any authority to compile, maintain and/or enforce a list of people who are prohibited from exercising their right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2A.

        “…shall not be infringed.” either means exactly that, or it doesn’t, and if it doesn’t, what is the point of keeping the amendment at all?

        An occasional nut job shooting up the neighborhood is a scary proposition, but allowing the government to decide who is or is not sane enough to exercise their RKBA is a real nightmare scenario.

        1. avatar Rich Grise says:

          And if he opens fire on a group of armed people, the assault won’t last very long.

      5. avatar ChrisB. says:

        Larry,
        I suggest you go read the Atlantic piece on this. Exactly how would this shooter be defined as a “nutbar.” In no state in the US would he have been adjudicated dangerous.

        There are tow choices: a) using adjudicated, ie with due process, as we have now, or b) adding non adjudicated people with mental health issues.

        The “Everytown” model of making federal databases of person with non adjudicated mental heath issues for the purpose of limiting rights would be a civil rights and mental health nightmare of immense proportions.

        Do we really want people with depression opting for not seeing a mental health professional because they maybe put on a list that would limit their bill of rights liberties, employment prospects, etc?

        How about people who might feel somewhat suicidal deciding whether to call a helpline, yet thinking this could ruin their rights for decades? People considering mental health counseling for whatever reason, deciding not to?

    2. avatar ggrimes2 says:

      So why are not those hired professional’s being prosecuted for this tragedy?

  2. avatar LordGopu says:

    What about people who’ve never displayed any mental issues?

    Also, this is the kind of thing that’s going to make people avoid going to psychologists. This will only exacerbate the problem because now people who want to take that first step towards getting better will be hesitant to take it.

    1. avatar whatever says:

      Then there’s the fact these sprawling records will invariably be accessed for other purposes, possibly commercial. How did that job interview go?

      1. avatar Geoff PR says:

        And don’t forget political uses…

    2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      According to Obama’s gun controllers everybody who owns a gun is already mentally ill. Owning a gun will soon be classified as a mental illness. This is an old totalitarian trick. The Soviets used to put dissidents into mental hospitals on the assumption that anyone who opposed the glorious people’s revolution had to be crazy. A little Thorazine will definitely help you get your mind right.

  3. avatar Alex Peters says:

    “While we’re shredding the Second Amendment, we might as well shred HIPAA too” – Gun Grabbers

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      What’s this “due process” or “doctor-patient privilege” you speak of?

    2. avatar publius2 says:

      HIPAA doesnt apply to the govt. Every fed.gov analyst in the fusion center can access you medical record, and share with local cops. Just like parrallel construction on NSA collected info going to DEA or others, that can be used to construct a reason to investigate or arrest someone suspected of criminal behavior.

      What this means is that legislators and people like AG Harris and POTUS need those laws to CYA for what FEDGOV already does illegally, without your so-called permission.

    3. avatar neiowa says:

      Really HIPPA is your worry. One of the sillyist things the feds have come up with as a solution in search of a problem. As HIPPA was largely the creation of “my” very own Senator Foghorn, dumb as a bag o rocks, Harkin let’s just stipulate that is is moronic and useless. The two primary requirements of anything Harkin becomes associated.

      1. avatar Jus Bill says:

        HIPAA was a very good idea until the politicians got their hooks into it.

  4. avatar Don says:

    They should make people with depression, anxiety, and ptsd wear a little star on their arm and drink from a different water fountain while they’re at it.

    Tens of millions of people have a “mental health record”, and no more of them are killers than are people who don’t. Our side is screwed up on and scapegoating mental health too. Go ahead everytown, make this a privacy and discrimination issue. Fascists.

    1. avatar Paul G. says:

      The next step will be to determine that everyone has a mental health problem, and as such, nobody should be allowed to own a gun. No more background checks needed. Or perhaps a twist on catch-22, with sane people being those not wanting guns, and anyone wanting a gun being considered mentally unstable, and therefore unqualified for ownership of one.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Well, hey, we could decide that everyone’s a felon just as easily, just a few have been caught, but what difference does that make? The best answer, so far as I can see, would be something like, say, “shall not be infringed”, but I’m not seeing that happening.

      2. avatar Ardent says:

        That’s easy, go tell a psychiatrist how you actually feel, he’ll define it as a clinical level mental health condition. Doesn’t matter how you feel about anything, it’s just that shrinks tend to see every patient as ‘sick’ to some degree. If you’re passionate you must be manic, if you’re middle of the road your borderline and if you’re disinterested your depressed. Our emotional reactions and normal ups and downs could all be ‘diagnosed’ it’s all a matter of degree.

        1. avatar Paul G. says:

          Anyone foolish enough to seek help must be sick….or else they wouldn’t be seeking help.

      3. avatar AMOK! says:

        Nicely played, Ninja Orwellian wordsmith. Nicely played.

        1. avatar Herb says:

          I’ve known for forty years that the highest suicide rate in the medical profession is among psychiatrists. As a result, I follow the advice of John Wayne: “Out here, pilgrim, a man learns to solve his own problems.”

          Notice he didn’t say “issues”. Anyway, see a shrink, get prescribed a mind-altering drug, kiss your 2nd Amendment freedom goodbye. Bottom line.

        2. avatar Rich Grise says:

          Everyone who’s ever been in an anonymous 12-step recovery group knows that the therapists are the sickest of the lot.

    2. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      Tens of millions of people have a “mental health record”

      Really, tens of millions?

      1. avatar Paul G. says:

        Yes, really.

      2. avatar pwrserge says:

        Given the number of American adults on antidepressants at any given time? I’d say that number is low.

      3. avatar Steve says:

        Yes, tens of millions. Those with a mental health record are anyone taking anti-depressants, anti-anxiety meds, those who ever sought mental health counseling or therapy, those clinically diagnosed with ADHD, autism, anorexia, bulemia, OCD, PTSD, phobias of any type, and the list goes on….
        See http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/the-numbers-count-mental-disorders-in-america/index.shtml#Mood for some basic info and stats.

        1. avatar tdiinva says:

          Many people take anti-depressants like Lyrica for nerve pain. Will they be caught up in the mental illness net?

        2. avatar Xanthro says:

          Many people take anti-depressants like Lyrica for nerve pain. Will they be caught up in the mental illness net?
          ————————

          Yes.

        3. avatar tdiinva says:

          It was a rhetorical question.

        4. avatar Martin B says:

          I went through a process much more stringent than anything Americans will ever face, in passing a New Zealand firearms safety test, then a Police background check including interviews with neighbours and family members. I disclosed everything in my medical history. I have a long term condition, Myalgic Encephalopathy, which is classified by the WHO as a neurological condition. Mainly I just get tired a lot and have to restrict my activities. I also have Fibromyalgia (very common with ME patients), and I take a low dose antidepressant (at about 1/10th of a psychiatric therapeutic dose) as it acts as a muscle relaxant. I did have a GP who didn’t believe in ME, and who put me on an SSRI (Prozac) for 6 months, until I insisted he stop as it was harming my liver, and had no effect whatsover on me.

          And yet the Police had no problems granting me a firearms license, as I was an active member of a small bore shooting club, and shared this enthusiasm with other family members. Although my illness prevents some of the more active shooting sports, including hunting, being in possession of firearms has not turned me into a crazed killer, and I have much more respect for the destructive power of firearms due to my training and the safety measures instilled into me.

          My life would be much poorer without the firearms I use, and I urge members of this forum to encourage the responsible use of firearms in enjoyable recreation.

        5. avatar Don says:

          SSRIs are used off label very successfully to treat difficult migraine disorders, particularly ocular migraines.

          Other people go on and off SSRIs temporarily for different reasons than depression.

          Even people who have depression have the right to defend themselves and their families. Of all the people who are depressed, very few kill themselves or others. Statistically, virtually nil.

          -D

  5. avatar dh34 says:

    I’d agree to that, if we had background checks for purchase or sale of:

    – autos, since irresponsible use of vehicles (speeding, texting, drunk driving, etc) kills more than guns. That includes motorcycles, scooters and mopeds.
    – knives, becoming the preferred weapon of psycho moms for killing their own kids.
    – any social media account online..since bullying and cyber-bullying seem to be the catch all reason for suicides/murders. We need to make sure that users are responsible enough to exercise free speech too.
    – alcohol and all legal recreational drugs. It’s not a stretch to say that alcohol/drug has a significant role in many deaths and injuries of all sorts.
    – having kids. Unfortunately there are more laws regarding the taking of unborn life than creating it. Some people just shouldn’t have kids.

    See I’m being reasonable, seeking common sense areas for compromise. So, as soon as MDA-Everybloomberg can get off their high horse and address some real problems, they can stick it.

  6. avatar Danny S says:

    The idea is slow but deliberate disarming of the population by (any) means of arbitrary reasons. Any and every medical issue can be escalated to grounds for declaring a person not-fit for firearm ownership, think about it.

    Blood pressure, cholesterol, low mobility? What if you faint, pass out or not fast enough to secure your guns. Not to mention depression, heart issues etc…

  7. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “We can only stop people who are dangerously mentally ill from buying guns if every gun sale includes a background check.”

    “Every gun sale” also includes criminals selling guns … how do “we” entice criminals to run a background check before selling a firearm to someone?

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      That statement is nonsensical in the first place. If 95% of sales include background checks, won’t we stop 95% of these events? It’s just not worth doing unless you cave to our most obviously sinister demands? Is there any possibility these clods think we’re all thstupid?

      The goal, as usual, is universal registration to prepare for confiscation and door-to-door searches with one national warrant. The presentation is getting a bit sneakier, but the goal is unchanged, and still idiotic.

      1. avatar Excedrine says:

        Except that there’s no telling just how many criminals are buying and selling guns because they operate completely outside any and all legitimate channels of trade. So, it’s completely asinine to even try to put a percentage on it, really. Much less scheming how to prevent them, which has only ever been conclusively proven to be physically impossible anyway.

  8. avatar Pascal says:

    http://news.yahoo.com/sheriff-calif-gunman-killed-3-people-home-005331176.html

    “This is almost the kind of event that’s impossible to prevent and almost impossible to predict,”
    UC President Janet Napolitano told reporters after giving the commencement speech at
    Laney College in Oakland, California.

    Aurora, Newtown, Navel Base DC and Santa Barbara — none would have been stopped with a background check because none of these people had been committed. If we are going to get to a point where you get on a list just because you simply visited the office of a mental health professional, the problem will simply get worse not better and there are many other unintended consequences.

    Nothing anyone can imagine will stop what just happened. Let us remember he stabbed 3, ran over 1 and many of the victims had injuries that were not gun related.

    Investment in mental health research is needed and under funded, but background check will do absolutely nothing and there is ZERO proof that it has ever helped.

    MDA is pumping their useless message because they have nothing else. If they keep repeating the lies enough some will come to believe it. That is their only tact.

    While in a drive-by-shooting you are best to run and cover, if in those 10 locations he visited someone was at vantage point to stop this person, he could have been stopped from causing more grief.

    There are only two lessons to be learned — 1) Evil can happen everywhere and at any time and 2) being prepared is always better than being oblivious

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Nothing anybody could imagine? I can imagine one of the 3 people in his apartment drawing and shooting him to death as soon as he attacked with a knife. One injured or dead, one dead for sure, one really thankful, everybody else blissfully ignorant. Laws permitting this are completely reasonable to pass, if you choose to ignore “shall not be infringed”, which would have fixed it.

      I’ve heard differing reports about the 3 he stabbed in his apartment, they may have been roommates, in which case you have to ask if they were not worried about this snowflake, and if so, why were they not ready for him? Some laws need to be changed.

    2. avatar TxGal says:

      “unintended consequences” Your legislators are incapable of understanding that concept. It’s why we already have so many stupid laws.

      It’s not like these spee killers come from the demographics of general population. Vast majority are left leaning, young, white, males. All have been males.

      1. avatar whatever says:

        I agree with most of what you said but you’re forgetting about all those white-supremacist spree killers.

  9. avatar Ralphie says:

    Food for thought! If we cannot predict animal behavior who thinks we can predict human behavior. This is much larger than mental health, this about a change in society.

  10. avatar Marty says:

    I proposed to my senators that the mental health records that should be added to NICS are those people on disability for mental health reasons. That way they are voluntarily telling the government they can’t function, and therefore it is a low bar but would still catch the most ill people.
    Including even those people who are committed to a mental health unit is ridiculous. People can be committed for just about anything, and it could be used a political tool to disarm people.
    The only response I received back from my senator was a form letter telling me about magazine bans….sigh.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Been there, they do not actually read what you write, perhaps the phone would be better. Oh, he also included a request for your money, didn’t he?

      1. avatar whatever says:

        You are so right. I get a form letter, a request for money, and my e-mail and phone number posted to every political spam list out there. No bueno.

        1. avatar SteveInCO says:

          A request for money?

          Next time that happens, check the envelope. If it has their signature where the stamp should be, they “franked” it. Congresspukes are allowed to send mail on their signature for official business, but campaigning and moneyraising for campaigns on a franked letter is a no-no.

    2. avatar foggy says:

      Do you honestly believe that people in this particular situation are more dangerous than other people? I’d have to see statistics, otherwise we’re just playing the same game as the antis.

  11. avatar Scottlac says:

    Is this where they want to go with it? It’s been done by leftists before.

    Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union

    1. avatar whatever says:

      Good find.

  12. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “And those background checks will only be effective if states submit the hundreds of thousands of mental health records still missing from the system. Every missing record is another tragedy waiting to happen.”

    Deranged people who have NO mental health records are also tragedies waiting to happen … like the Santa Barbara sociopath who went on his rampage Friday evening. (I refuse to utter that sociopath’s name.)

    More importantly, why would anyone entrust their every day personal security to government? After all, government is nothing more than a bunch of bureaucrats who have failed their assignments millions of times, whether those failures were due to apathy, ignorance, corruption, ineptitude, mistake, negligence, or lack of resources.

    1. avatar Jus Bill says:

      And, even more importantly, have been promoted one echelon above their level of competence.

  13. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    So what if you are a former paid shill for Monsanto, selling genetically modified foods that are sold to children, or you become a paid shill for a health care organization that came under fire for denying basic coverage to thousands of paid policyholders while ensuring senior managememt had cushy golden parachutes, or better yet, you have an adulterous affair with one of those senior managers, rip his family apart just so you can slide in and feather your own nest?

    Is that not insanity, Shannon?

    1. avatar brian says:

      No, that’s Hypergamy.

      Which, oddly enough, is implicated in our Psycho du jour’s rampage.

    2. avatar Anonymous says:

      Hey – she’s here representing all moms’ effort to save the children. A pinnacle of morality and a shining example for all moms.

    3. avatar SteveInCO says:

      That’s a person who didn’t respond to your advances. Frankly you’re too good for her anyway.

    4. avatar Excedrine says:

      She actually did all those things, huh? Care to share a few sources? 😉

    5. avatar Jus Bill says:

      Hey Dirk –

      I came across a propaganda picture of Shannon in more carefree hays. Holding a child.
      http://crooksandliars.com/2014/05/just-after-another-mass-shooting-armed

  14. avatar Bud says:

    I don’t have any degrees and I am pretty much limited by my own life experiences to come up with a solution. Since draconian gun laws don’t seem to be working, whatever can we do?

    Here’s an idea. How about if we let everyone be armed so there will always be someone available to stop these rampages when they get started?

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Yes. Yes. Yes.

    2. avatar whatever says:

      You’re right on the money.

    3. avatar Ardent says:

      You nailed it, one shooter vs however many defenders are in the area favors the defenders in an attempting mass shooting.

    4. avatar SteveInCO says:

      Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!

      The safest I ever felt was at Open Carry appreciation day at Franktown. I knew maybe two people there, but just about everyone had a sidearm.

      A miscreant like E***** R****** would have lost about three pounds dumping a load in his shorts, then gained ten pounds (for a net gain of seven) from all the bullets stopped in his body. Then we would have heard incessant news reports about the hazards of yo-yo dieting.

    5. avatar Gunr says:

      I remember years ago that someone said the best way to prevent hijacking on an airliner, is to pass out a gun to everyone as they board the plane. The idea of this is that no one would dare try and take over a plane in flight, knowing everyone on board was armed!

    6. avatar Paul Smathers says:

      “An armed society is a polite society.” Robert Heinlein

  15. avatar Tammy says:

    Not to mention that in California, every gun sale DOES require a background check, and all of the usual so-called “common sense regulations” these clowns usually advocate for are already law here. That has to be why the bloody shirt du jour is the mental health issue. Can’t have someone pointing out that all the things these people usually promise will prevent the next tragedy didn’t prevent this one, can we?

  16. avatar BR549 says:

    The only tragedy is why politicians and leaders have consistently chosen to abandon the population and Constitution they once swore to protect. In doing so, they have disenfranchised millions of people and left them trying to scavenge the crumbs of a once proud republic.

    The level of hubris involved here by these politicians defies the imagination. They sell themselves to the voters as possessing the managerial acumen necessary to run this social experiment and then do nothing but raise taxes to pay for their pay increases and cover up their blunders. Then when people start taking out their frustrations and resentments on their fellow citizens, the politicians immediately cry foul and authorize more taxes to be used to defend their criminal behavior.

    I know that it isn’t ALL of Congress that is the problem, but it is always enough of Congress that fails to do the right thing whenever the Rothschild and Bilderberg order-givers dictate the move toward a globalist takeover. If every member of Congress decided that enough was enough, suddenly grew a set of testicles, closed down the Federal Reserve, and impeached that narcissist in the White House, we would still have to contend with the possibility of corruption within the Military Industrial Complex standing behind a coup or the Supreme Court continuing to look the other way and twiddle their collective thumbs while everyone else was realizing how to correct this mess.

  17. avatar jamesii says:

    A relative did most of his military time in SOP. Three months in country, three months home. Three months in country, three months home. You get the picture. One day while between deployments he found himself in his garage walking in a circle, smoking cigs and drinking beer. He was wound up waiting for his next deployment. He realized he needed to talk to someone and he did. He worked through his issues and is doing well. The problem is that can be used against him if he decides, as a civilian, to own and carry firearms even though he is as sane and stable as anyone i know. I do believe we need to keep firearms out of the hands of people with serious, intractable mental health problems but how to do that is a slippery slope indeed.

  18. avatar WI Patriot says:

    That statement doesn’t even make sense, the guns used in the UCSB shooting were all purchased legally, with BG checks and all, didn’t help out there, did it…what a farce, these leftist/liberals are like a dog with a bone, so focused on the bone, unable or unwilling to see anything else around…

  19. avatar Dev says:

    Just in reading some of the opinion columns on newpapers’ websites today, none of this matters. None of them care about the fact that this kid passed all their laws, all their checks, that the family contacted police because they were worried. The antis are just blaming guns, the NRA and anyone else who is pro-gun for this incident. They are even neglecting to mention the fact that he started killing with knives because it doesn’t suit their agenda. Of course, they also neglect the fact that the violent crime rate is down compared to twenty years ago, and that crime is generally tied to the economy. No, it is all “GUNS ARE EVIL AND SO ARE THEIR OWNERS”. Sadly, we seem to be losing this propaganda war, too.

  20. avatar former water walker says:

    Yes this POS had multiple road blocks on the road to murder & mayhem. He also had mommy & daddy’s money fueling his killing spree. An expensive BMW, paid college, an apartment, 3 very nice handguns and 40(?) magazines fully loaded. He lived in the gun control paradise of Kalifornia too. The anti’s DO have it their way. I’m afraid this s##t will embolden the a##wipes to deny gun rights to ANYONE for ANY REASON.

  21. avatar anthony s. says:

    I talk to many people about gun control. My goal is twofold; first to understand their reasoning, fear etc…, second to show with logical argument how their goal of no gun deaths is not effected by the means they propose and thirdly (always more) that they are likely to never be part of the mortality statistics unless they are in the narrow demographic group defined by the CDC where the bulk of the death count comes from.(excluding suicide, sadly, but that’s a choice-however misguided). I then go on to propose that the fear and ignorance of the realities of “gun violence” as they call it are used to attach to the empathy, heartstrings of well intentioned people while simultaneously vilifying gun owners… My question is always who is behind this push to ban guns and why. it certainly is not because of the “risk” they pose to society. there are far more deaths affecting a wider demographic from much less dramatic scenarios that could easily be legislated without such a huge conflict with the constitution. I wonder what the real goal is…

  22. avatar Don1974 says:

    Some view the mere act of purchasing a gun a mental illness. Its my sincere belief the anti-gun crowd is trying to divide and conquer here. Like for example “we just want to restrict those that are mentally ill (their definition of course) from owning guns, then we will leave the rest of you alone”. I hope gun owners can stay united and use the same standard to purchase firearms as we do today. ADJUDICATED mentally ill. I believe all Americans are entitled to due process.

  23. avatar Ardent says:

    Really think about this and argument for mental health checks for gun purchases becomes absurd.

    I’m assuming you already have a gun, can you stash it where it wont be found?

    If you had no guns left right now, couldn’t buy one through normal channels, but were desperate for a gun what would you do?

    Would you ask a friend to lend you one? I certainly could and I have many friend and family members who would loan me a gun, more if false pretenses are used; “I’m thinking of buying X gun, could I take yours to the range to see if I really like it?”

    If you have no friends or family like this, or none who have guns, what’s next?

    I’m certain I could shop lift one from my LGS. We know each other so well that they let me behind the counters to play with whatever I want and even leave me to watch the shop to go to the bathroom or across the street for a soda once in a while. When they noticed it missing the security video would implicate me, but by then I’m off with a gun.

    What about pulling a ‘terminator’ and simply bringing ammo to a low staffed LGS, requesting a weapon to look at and then charging it and using it to complete a robbery?

    Could you pull a late night smash and grab at an LGS? What about breaking into vehicles outside of gun free zones? The one with the NRA and Glock stickers in the court house parking lot probably has a gun inside.

    What about residential burglary, I know where to find some great hardware if I were a thief and if mas murder is what I want to do, what’s a little burglary?

    How about arming up with a good knife and cruising bad neighborhoods asking about buying a gun off the street?

    What about ambushing a lone police officer and making off with his armament?

    How about identity theft, that’s ever popular, shouldn’t be that hard to buy a gun with a background check using stolen ID.

    It’s not like I thought this out, I’m pulling these ideas out of thin air. The point is that once behaving in a lawful manner is no longer a restriction, getting a gun isn’t rocket science or even much work. If murder is what you intend in the first place a little theft shouldn’t be much of a problem. Mentally ill doesn’t equate to stupid. If I can think of these things a nut job contemplating a mass murder can come up with them too. More laws don’t ‘stop’ crimes, they either assign more penalties for things that were already illegal or else they criminalize formerly lawful behavior. We already have far too many laws, more will not prevent anything what so ever.

  24. avatar Mark Lloyd says:

    This entire event has taken the turn to absurdity. The guy went on a rampage. He stabbed and shot. There is no realistic way of preventing these incidents from occurring. It’s happened before and it will happen again.

  25. avatar DerryM says:

    Reading the linked “Update”, MAIG still has a ways to go to start incrementally expanding the list of persons prohibited from buying guns due to “mental Health” issues, which apparently is defined by the Fed. I wouldn’t view it as immediately worrisome.

    When you consider how often spree killings by mentally unbalanced persons happen, relative to the total population, it is statistically insignificant, especially when compared to other daily dangers we all face and the demonstrated benefit to public safety of armed Citizens at home and in public places

    The fact that MAIG wants to penalize a vastly larger portion of the population for the tragic behavior of a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction just proves their long-term goal is to disarm us Citizen gun owners. Any attempt to disarm us will result in part in millions of guns being dumped into a Black Market out of sheer spite, if nothing else, and no doubt fuel an outbreak of criminality, terror and carnage the likes of which would exceed the wildest dreams of Bloomie, Watts and every other gun-grabber.

    There probably is no good answer to this issue, particularly if it involves the Government controlling it. There probably is no valid reason to look for an answer, either. Yet again, the best answer is to allow Open and Concealed Carry universally by all legal gun owners to enable the fastest possible response to outbreaks of criminal violence.

    1. avatar Mark Lloyd says:

      Sounds pretty, but realistically, I would NOT want to be in the position to need to fire at the guy without the legal layers of immunity the cops have.

      Four officer were gunned down in a coffee shop in Lakewood, Washington. The gunman, later identified as Maurice Clemmons, entered the coffee shop, fired at the officers as they sat working on their laptop computers preparing for their shifts, and then fled the scene.

      I’m not against your idea, it’s just when I imagine a shooting incident and being in the position to un-holster and take action, it would NOT be a situation I would envy.

      1. avatar DerryM says:

        Mark, I am not sure what you are objecting to…my “idea” is not new, or original…I am just saying that, all things considered, there is no really good answer to the mental health background check issue, except what we have discussed here many times…national (universal) Open or Concealed Carry by private Citizens at home and in public.

        The Police you referenced were preparing for their shift and, I would presume, wearing uniforms, badges, “Sam Browns” with holstered pistols and so forth. So to that perpetrator they might as well have had a neon sign above their heads that read “SHOOT COPS HERE”. If you were an armed Citizen in that scenario, the perpetrator would not be looking for you, it would be your choice to engage or not, and you might have stopped him before he shot all four Officers.

        Maybe you interpreted my use of the word “universal” to mean somehow ‘mandatory’, but I assure you I am not advocating making anyone do anything, just making the CHOICE available to anyone who wants to exercise it. I used it in the sense of “universally available” (to those who choose to carry).

        I do not believe it is Constitutional to require a Background Check, but I do not expect to see the NICS repealed anytime in the foreseeable future. I would not help make it more onerous to us Citizens. I will advocate for the only common sense “workaround”, namely universally available Open and Concealed Carry by all Citizens who choose to do so.

        1. avatar Mark Lloyd says:

          I thought my comment was clear. I’m not objecting to anything. My point being, that even armed cops got gunned down. You could be in a coffee shop where any malcontent on a mission to kill, could walk in and shoot indiscriminately and there is little anyone could do, armed or not. I’m armed, almost all the time. I don’t particularly agree with the concept of open carry, although I think that should be up to the individual and not regulated.
          My point was that even being armed, in many situations, an armed person is still going to be in a highly difficult situation. That’s all, nothing more. Don’t read more into than there was.

        2. avatar DerryM says:

          I understand. Of course, if you are carrying and get into a situation you have to make a decision about what you are going to do..that’s taken for granted. It’s a combination of good Samaritanism and sound tactical judgement.

  26. avatar gemalo says:

    I’m willing to put money down that if they did a mental health background check on Bloomberg, he would not be able to own a gun. Maybe that’s why he has someone else do it for him now.

  27. avatar tdiinva says:

    I am going to dissent on the mental health causation here. Elliot Rodger was not clinically insane. He suffered from arrested development brought on be a Progressive culture that denies the concepts of success and failure. You learn much more from failure then you do from success. If his parents didn’t spoil and culture didn’t assure him he was entitled perhaps he would have coped better. He might even have gotten laid.

    1. avatar Mark Lloyd says:

      I suspect that he was just off enough to turn most people away from him. We all know the type, you talk to them enough to discover the person is fucking weird and then from then on, you avoid them.
      I’ve known people like that. I met them, found them to be strange, only to find out yeas later they committed suicide.
      Actually, at 57 years old and been in this area since 1969, I have known lots of people who were “off” that are now dead or in prison.
      Welcome to reality.

  28. avatar Rikoshay says:

    An Armed society is a polite society. That’s suppose to be the rule of from top on down. You consider that I might/probably am armed and I’ll be polite.

  29. avatar Charles says:

    Background checks don’t change a damn thing. Most mentally unstable people that have guns purchased them before they had any mental issues and something happened to make them unstable.
    This is how they avoid being noticed until it’s too late. That said, there are almost always warning signs, and it’s up to the family, friends and even coworkers to show concern BEFORE something happens. Often though, that doesn’t happen until it’s too late.

    We live in an imperfect world, unicorns and pixies don’t play here. Precog is not an option. Fight for your right to carry, and train often, so that you don’t become a victim of a imperfect world.

  30. avatar Nedd Ludd says:

    Check out this paragon of the “psychiatric community”…
    Keep in mind that he received his advanced medical training at Columbia University in NYC.

    Just the sort you’d want judging the sanity of others…

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radovan_Karad%C5%BEi%C4%87

    “Radovan Karadžić (Serbian: Радован Караџић, pronounced [râdovaːn kârad͡ʒit͡ɕ]; born 19 June 1945) is a former Bosnian Serb politician. During the breakup of Yugoslavia, Karadžić, as President of the Republika Srpska, sought the direct unification of that entity with Serbia.[1] He is detained in the United Nations Detention Unit of Scheveningen, accused of war crimes committed against Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats during the Siege of Sarajevo, as well as ordering the Srebrenica massacre.[2]

    Educated as a psychiatrist, he co-founded the Serbian Democratic Party in Bosnia and Herzegovina and was the first President of Republika Srpska from 1992 to 1996. He was a fugitive from 1996 until July 2008 after having been indicted for war crimes by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).[3] The indictment concluded there were reasonable grounds for believing he committed war crimes, including genocide against Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat civilians during the Bosnian War (1992–95).[4] While a fugitive he worked at a private clinic in Belgrade, specialising in alternative medicine and psychology under the alias Dr. Dragan David Dabić (Др Драган Давид Дабић) under the company name of “Human Quantum Energy”.[5] His nephew, Dragan Karadžić, has claimed in an interview to the Corriere della Sera that Radovan Karadžić attended football matches of Serie A and that he visited Venice using a different alias (Petar Glumac). [6]

    He was arrested in Belgrade on 21 July 2008 and brought before Belgrade’s War Crimes Court a few days later.[7] Extradited to the Netherlands, he is in the custody of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.[8] He is sometimes referred to by the Western media as the “Butcher of Bosnia”,[9][10][11] a sobriquet also applied to former VRS General Ratko Mladić.[12][13][14]

    …during 1974 and 1975 he underwent further medical training at Columbia University in New York….”

  31. avatar Mk10108 says:

    The assault on our rights now has an Executive Summary, an air if you will of legitimacy. Go ahead folks, play with your OC and fiddle with your keyboards, if an organization that wants your gun, repeats the mantra on constant feedback loop, they’re coming for your legislators.

    Get in front of your representatives, and flood council meetings.

    Robert….develop a PDF play book for download. Everyone on this board needs to memorize it and use it for your 3 min public comments at town meetings.

  32. avatar Steve Lo Vullo says:

    If leftists were normal people, this might not be a bad idea. But we have seen historically how they have abused psychology and psychiatry to destroy their enemies. Make no mistake: They think we are ALL crazy for even wanting a gun. So how do you think they will abuse a system like this?

  33. avatar Kyle says:

    Would this be a violation of privacy rights?

    1. avatar Charles says:

      IMHO Yes unless congress makes it law overriding the constitution again. Or unless the president overrides it with his “Pen and phone”.

      1. avatar Rich Grise says:

        “IMHO Yes unless congress makes it law overridingviolating the Constitution again. Or unless the president overridesviolates it with his “Pen and phone”.”

        FIFY.

  34. avatar BDub says:

    I’m just going to say it – Not every person that is diagnosed with a mental illness should be prevented from buying and carrying a firearm. There is only a small percentage of those diagnosed with a mental illness that are ever violent, and the vast majority of those will only harm themselves.

    The whole mental-health middle-ground compromise is a camel’s nose, and has nothing to do with safety or mental health.

    1. avatar Rich Grise says:

      They wouldn’t let me read the things because it rejected my signup attempt. And I’m not very interested in a site that makes you sign up just to LOOK!

      But thanks for playing.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email