5 ms·

"Weaver had been pushing for, an acknowledgment that the theater chain would take new measures to protect patrons." Another TSA at the cinema? No, thanks. We c

by kbart 10y ago

"Weaver had been pushing for, an acknowledgment that the theater chain would take new measures to protect patrons." Another TSA at the cinema? No, thanks. We can't secure every step from mass shooting and/or terrorists attacks without making cities into the huge prisons. While our society functions normally and mass killings are very rare, there's no need to take additional security measurements. A much better way is to invest these money into mental health programs. So no, despite the alarmist tone on this article, the court ruling was sane and probably the best one in this case.

lostlogin 10y ago
What about dealing with mental health and guns? Both of these are hard but the guns one is pretty much untouchable unfortunately.
- LyndsySimon 10y ago
  In the US, depriving someone of a right is a legal process. If someone has been adjudicated mentally incompetent, they cannot legally own a gun.
  - lostlogin 10y ago
    Except when the correct process isn't followed and they just buy one, which unfortunately occurs. http://everytown.org/press/new-fbi-data-shows-mental-health-records-in-background-check-system-tripled-since-release-of-fatal-gaps-report-pressed-states-to-submit-records-of-prohibited-gun-purchasers/ http://everytown.org/press/new-fbi-data-shows-mental-health-...
    - LyndsySimon 10y ago
      Your response is a complete non sequitur. If someone has been adjudicated incompetent, they may not legally own a gun.
      - lostlogin 10y ago
        Except when they walk into a shop and buy one, hence the link.
        LyndsySimon 10y ago
        Please cite an example of someone adjudicated mentally incompetent who purchased a firearm from a "shop".
        lostlogin 10y ago
        I'm not sure you get what I have just said. The process doesn't work. People clearly mentally unfit to own guns can buy them legally. The process is not followed and they don't get barred. People who are unfit don't get flagged as unfit and then buy guns. How many examples would you like? Half a dozen come to mind. There are no shortages of publications that state this.
        LyndsySimon 10y ago
        I can think of no examples where someone who has been adjudicated as incompetent has purchased firearms from an FFL and gone on to commit crimes - and I'm quite familiar with the process, let me assure you. You saying someone is "unfit to own guns" does not make it so.
        lostlogin 10y ago
        It does when it's their healthcare professional and that is what they are seeking help for. When their doctor fails to follow the correct process things fall apart. This has happened repeatedly, as the provided link indicates.
        LyndsySimon 10y ago
        It takes more than a medical diagnosis. A person must be involuntarily committed or adjudicated incompetent. Both of these are legal processes, not medical ones. This is appropriate. Individuals should not be deprived of their basic human rights without due process.
- kbart 10y ago
  I'm not familiar with USA gun laws, but in my country, if you have had mental health, criminal or drug abuse problems during last 10 years, you won't get a permit to own a gun. Of course, those who really want it, will find a way to buy illegal guns anyway..
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    Yeah, a criminal history will make it difficult to get a legal gun. And there are some checks on mental health that apply to transactions with a dealer (but private sales can be legal and not require the checks). It's kind of unfortunate that people talk about gun control in association with incidents like the one in Aurora. More stringent control won't do much to stop motivated people from getting guns. What it will do is keep guns out of the hands of people who are suicidal or having a dispute with someone they know, both of which are much larger gun violence problems than random mass shootings. It's also the case that most proposed measures would be pretty useless in combating random violence. Many proposals focus on meaningless cosmetic features and others ignore the rate of sustained fire that can be achieved with a modest amount of training. Without shifting the culture, I think you'd need incredibly strict rules to really do much in the US (like a ban on all pistols and semiautomatic guns, which would probably best be done by amending the Constitution).
    - drakonandor 10y ago
      99% of unjustifiable gun homicides is due to gang members, who don't follow laws anyway. Taking away pistols is just another way of saying you don't think women or smaller people should be able to have an even footing vs. larger men, or that anyone should be able to protect themselves against home invaders.
      - maxerickson 10y ago
        99% of unjustifiable gun homicides You'll have to spell out in more detail which homicides you believe are justified and which are not if you want me to be able to respond to this in much detail. FBI statistics show that handguns are used far more often to win arguments than they are by gangs: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_11_murder_circumstances_by_weapon_2012.xls https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-... But if you consider homicide a justified way to respond to an argument, there isn't much to say in response to your claim. It's also interesting that you think I'm particularly a proponent of gun control. My interest is more in having a better debate about what meaningful gun control would be, I don't expect much change in US firearms laws any time soon. So above I point out that the incidents we pay attention to aren't the largest part of the problem, and I point out that the proposed responses to those incidents often aren't likely to accomplish anything. I suppose my main thought is that gun control advocates should take a clear look at what they really need to advocate for and start advocating to amend the constitution. If they succeeded in passing an amendment, they would have a strong legal foundation for increased regulation and would have a pretty clear mandate to point at.

by kbart 10y ago

lostlogin 10y ago

What about dealing with mental health and guns? Both of these are hard but the guns one is pretty much untouchable unfortunately.

LyndsySimon 10y ago
In the US, depriving someone of a right is a legal process. If someone has been adjudicated mentally incompetent, they cannot legally own a gun.
- lostlogin 10y ago
  Except when the correct process isn't followed and they just buy one, which unfortunately occurs. http://everytown.org/press/new-fbi-data-shows-mental-health-records-in-background-check-system-tripled-since-release-of-fatal-gaps-report-pressed-states-to-submit-records-of-prohibited-gun-purchasers/ http://everytown.org/press/new-fbi-data-shows-mental-health-...
  - LyndsySimon 10y ago
    Your response is a complete non sequitur. If someone has been adjudicated incompetent, they may not legally own a gun.
    - lostlogin 10y ago
      Except when they walk into a shop and buy one, hence the link.
      - LyndsySimon 10y ago
        Please cite an example of someone adjudicated mentally incompetent who purchased a firearm from a "shop".
        lostlogin 10y ago
        I'm not sure you get what I have just said. The process doesn't work. People clearly mentally unfit to own guns can buy them legally. The process is not followed and they don't get barred. People who are unfit don't get flagged as unfit and then buy guns. How many examples would you like? Half a dozen come to mind. There are no shortages of publications that state this.
        LyndsySimon 10y ago
        I can think of no examples where someone who has been adjudicated as incompetent has purchased firearms from an FFL and gone on to commit crimes - and I'm quite familiar with the process, let me assure you. You saying someone is "unfit to own guns" does not make it so.
        lostlogin 10y ago
        It does when it's their healthcare professional and that is what they are seeking help for. When their doctor fails to follow the correct process things fall apart. This has happened repeatedly, as the provided link indicates.
        LyndsySimon 10y ago
        It takes more than a medical diagnosis. A person must be involuntarily committed or adjudicated incompetent. Both of these are legal processes, not medical ones. This is appropriate. Individuals should not be deprived of their basic human rights without due process.
kbart 10y ago
I'm not familiar with USA gun laws, but in my country, if you have had mental health, criminal or drug abuse problems during last 10 years, you won't get a permit to own a gun. Of course, those who really want it, will find a way to buy illegal guns anyway..
- maxerickson 10y ago
  Yeah, a criminal history will make it difficult to get a legal gun. And there are some checks on mental health that apply to transactions with a dealer (but private sales can be legal and not require the checks). It's kind of unfortunate that people talk about gun control in association with incidents like the one in Aurora. More stringent control won't do much to stop motivated people from getting guns. What it will do is keep guns out of the hands of people who are suicidal or having a dispute with someone they know, both of which are much larger gun violence problems than random mass shootings. It's also the case that most proposed measures would be pretty useless in combating random violence. Many proposals focus on meaningless cosmetic features and others ignore the rate of sustained fire that can be achieved with a modest amount of training. Without shifting the culture, I think you'd need incredibly strict rules to really do much in the US (like a ban on all pistols and semiautomatic guns, which would probably best be done by amending the Constitution).
  - drakonandor 10y ago
    99% of unjustifiable gun homicides is due to gang members, who don't follow laws anyway. Taking away pistols is just another way of saying you don't think women or smaller people should be able to have an even footing vs. larger men, or that anyone should be able to protect themselves against home invaders.
    - maxerickson 10y ago
      99% of unjustifiable gun homicides You'll have to spell out in more detail which homicides you believe are justified and which are not if you want me to be able to respond to this in much detail. FBI statistics show that handguns are used far more often to win arguments than they are by gangs: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/expanded-homicide/expanded_homicide_data_table_11_murder_circumstances_by_weapon_2012.xls https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-... But if you consider homicide a justified way to respond to an argument, there isn't much to say in response to your claim. It's also interesting that you think I'm particularly a proponent of gun control. My interest is more in having a better debate about what meaningful gun control would be, I don't expect much change in US firearms laws any time soon. So above I point out that the incidents we pay attention to aren't the largest part of the problem, and I point out that the proposed responses to those incidents often aren't likely to accomplish anything. I suppose my main thought is that gun control advocates should take a clear look at what they really need to advocate for and start advocating to amend the constitution. If they succeeded in passing an amendment, they would have a strong legal foundation for increased regulation and would have a pretty clear mandate to point at.