How do we prevent these mass shootings?

The real solution in school settings might be to not provide grants to irresponsible, mentally unstable people to attend colleges where they can take out valuable people able to make much greater contributions to society than they will probably ever be able to do.


https://www.google.com/webhp?source...8#q=FUnding+for+mentally+ill+to+atend+college

"Google...
About 113,000,000 results (0.59 seconds)
Showing results for Funding for mentally ill to attend college"

.

Anyone with a history of not taking their prescribed meds should be ineligible for such a scholarship.Additionally, such grants should require ongoing psychiatric supervision while attending college, and informing the student's professors and other involved staff of their MH needs. Furthermore, the students' classmates should also be made as aware as necessary in order for them to be adequately self protective.

IMO we have gone too far in the other direction regarding the mentally ill. Some really are dangerous and really should not be in mainstream society if they do not cooperate with treatment.

I see funding a college stay for such people the equivalent of the old practice of "dumping" hard-to-handle cases on other jurisdictions by providing them with a bus ticket. MH hospitilizations are easily as or more costly than a year at college, and it appears to me that some jurisdictions might be seeing college attendance as an easy way to get rid of some difficult and potentially dangerous patients.

MHMR agencies need to become more protective of the general public. If necessary, the HIPAA laws need to be modified to do so, but a simpler beginning might be to make it necessary for patients to at least sign information releases allowing their colleges, including ALL involved, to be aware of what they are dealing with.

Enabling potential perpetrators to have easy access to their future victims by providing them with college grants without any built in safeguards is simply unacceptable and needs to be stopped.

Of course, such people should also not have access to guns. People who knowingly provide access to them by such people should be held financially liable in civil court, and psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, and therapists should have their professional credentials yanked if they do not report such cases to authorities to prevent their access to firearms.

 

Really? And where did you find this statistic?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ed-killings-than-any-other-developed-country/

 

And you still lost.

 

People should not have guns.

 

That was my point, thanks.

We still managed to beat your little empire though, and then save it some years later.

Thanks for the input though.

- - - Updated - - -

People should not murder, rape, rob, or steal personal property either.

 

Sure ... but this is the reason why only a very strict and in all 50 states same way full valid, controlled and forced hard gun law can be solution which allows only few to have license for a gun which need + restriction of gun types allowed (why the hack need someone an AR-15 or Kalashnikov?).
But the resistance against such a law is inside USA too overwhelming big out of different counter reasons and interests and so it will not be never ... maximum will be some rediculous half ass done changes to existing law which help for Symptom but not help anything against reasons of gun violance.

 

People don't need anything besides a couple thousand calories, oxygen, and water.

We resist it because it solves nothing, and allows the rise of what is obviously the attempt to take away ALL our rights.

Why is it so important to you that we disarm?

 

Stop this nonsense, please.

We know what firearms are. Considering all that's happened, to suggest we need no further measures/actions taken about them is ludicrous to me.

I'm not going to pretend to be a policy-maker here... but I will tell you that I surely advocate for comprehensive background checks AND licensing, before people are allowed to possess firearms in this society.

There are many more points to discuss, but I'm not into those at this point in time.

Regards.

 

I don't buy that. Nothing against you, but against your logic.

When I entered the U.S. Military, my job required a background check and certain conditions existing in my record surely WOULD have disqualified me for operating/servicing the weapon systems I worked for 30+ years. Those conditions also applied to my holding/operating firearms, upon which my job was contingent.

I'm not going to make any judgments about YOU per se... but more than your 'word', I'd prefer the State check you, me or anyone else out before trusting them with firearms.

 

No, not first/last for this situation. How about background checks AND "mental health care"?

That is, our society (compared to MANY other very similar to ours), is BEHIND the damned curve, as it relates to success or propriety in controlling gun deaths. We need to START doing what we need to do.

You can push for mental health (as a priority), I'm with you. But I promise ANYONE, that this one citizen (me) is placing Universal Background Checks on the TOP FRONT SHELF. (I'm about to go 'religious' on that aspect.)

 

You don't buy what exactly? I have been diagnosed with social anxiety, what exactly do you want? To take away my guns simply because of that.

I think it's absurd that I should have to justify myself, but heck - even that is better than a blanket ban and the theft of my firearms simply because of the diagnosis. I get anxious around crowds and people I don't know. I avoid social situations. That doesn't make me a killer. No competent therapist would suggest anything of the sort.

[hr][/hr]

However, it's very appealing to simply say "the 'mentally ill' should be denied gun rights, period. It hits the right populist note with the ignorant masses who to be honest wouldn't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) if armed thugs come and seize my property because I'm excessively shy.

 

I'm not going to go into this myth that you 'saved' us because I'm getting tired of correcting Americans. Suffice to say that you arrived over three years late by which time Hitler had effectively lost the war by having attacked the USSR and you were, essentially, mopping up. Any material aid we had from you was paid for fully, in cash, with interest. Oh, yes, nearly forgot; if it were not for huge amounts of assistance from France, both financial and in military materiel, the outcome of your revolutionary war would not have been quite so certain.

 

I don't buy what YOU are claiming here vs. what a system designed to check you out says.

I don't know YOU and I don't know the guy down the street who own guns either.

 

I will never understand why people that think we should give up on drug laws sine we can't prevent their importation still believe we can keep guns out of the country. Or, for that matter, why they can see that crime has actually declined drastically over the last few years almost entirely do to a several fold increase in the number of concealed carry permits, and three strikes laws.

 

The simple answer to the question is that mass killings can simply not be prevented. Nobody wishes to believe such is the truth, but it is.

- - - Updated - - -

Statistically speaking, mass shootings are also a rarity in the united states.

 

Then we'll end our discussion as I want this but I have absolutely no reason as to why. I'll accept that.

 

We're done.

Regards.

 

What makes you think we invented barbarity? We didn't but we sure did a great sales job retelling it. As for the Aztecs, they met an even worse barbarian in Cortez. I am surprised you didn't mention the rest of human history, it's filled with atrocities but as a Hungarian/Spanish mixed descendent, I don't remember telling stories about how cruel the Romans were when Attila annihilated them or how much Cortez or Pizarro freed the natives to meet Jesus.

 

Whao parder, you've changed the narrative here. I didn't say that anyone has a monopoly on barbarism. But I did point out that the American was completely and fully engaged in it. And if we hadn't come along, they would still be engaged in it. BTW the Romans won that war and the Huns disappeared into history.

 

I would not take those odds.

 

Of course, I will always own firearms. I'm more so complaining about how much more onerous it is to have to deal with black markets and shoot in remote areas.

I don't expect you to know the guy down the street, I do however expect you to refrain from impeding him unless he denies you the same liberty.

[hr][/hr]

PS: this was my 8000th post so you are obligated to agree with me. Sorry.

 

and more chances for them to be used to save lives...many more.

- - - Updated - - -

Seems like a guilt edged invitation to the mental health version of 'SWAT ing'...

 

Agree 100%...I refuse to give away my absolute RIGHT to defend myself and family just so some leftie grabber can get a warm fuzzy feeling as he grabs guns.

 

Yeah you guys almost had it before we got there.

I don't hear the French complaining, maybe because we returned the favor.

What I do know is that based on the historical actions of your country you're the last ones to have that moral high ground.

 

You don't. What you do is allow people to defend themselves. In the recent shooting, once again, an Army veteran did what he could to stop it but, once again, he was in a "gun-free zone" and so, as a law-abiding citizen, did not carry. If he had had a gun, you wouldn't hear this story circulating around mass media outlets, it would have been a story picked up just by groups like Breitbart.

And we should also be keenly aware that we're talking about a Constitutional right. A lot of people agree with you, Ronstar, that we should screen and be cautious of people who have mental conditions such as depression, since they are statistically more likely to be a danger to others (and themselves), but again I call your attention to the fact that this is a Constitutional right. People with mental health conditions like depression, PTSD, etc. can be as much as 3x as likely to commit acts of violence - and? So what? You're talking about violating the Constitutional rights of individuals who have done NOTHING wrong at any point, because of group statistics. That sounds a lot like the ultra-conservative ideas about stripping blacks of guns, right? And it turns out those ultra-cons have similar arguments - blacks are roughly 4x as likely to commit murder (a difference of rate greater than that for most mental illnesses).

I'm not saying that you, Ronstar, support denying blacks a Constitutional right - what I'm pointing out is that, all puffed up rhetoric aside, your argument for infringing on the Constitutional rights of people with mental illnesses who have done nothing wrong is the same basic argument for denying Constitutional rights to blacks - blacks who have done nothing wrong, and broken no law. And I obviously couldn't stand for that - you don't deny someone their Constitutional rights because of group statistics. This violates not only the clear letter of the 2nd amendment (in this case), but also the 14th.