Crazy Talk

[Roadkill Coyote]

My suggestions for addressing mass killings in the news would be to break the problem down into three Ms

1. Mental Illness - Change the law and create a legal preclusion to the purchase and possession of firearms for anyone with a current prescription for any medication with serious side-effects like "may cause suicidal ideation". We can argue about the details, like which drugs should be on the list, but there ought to be a list. If the individual hasn't been adjudicated, then they come off the list thirty days after the prescription expires or is cancelled. Such a list should then be added to the NICS system. Also, implement FIX NICS.

2. Media Attention - Since the belief that they will be showered in media attention is the driving motivation that unites these people, reporting the names and images of suspect by commercial news organizations should be dramatically restricted. A federal judge should be on call 24/7 to make the call which incidents qualify and a process for news organizations who wish to contest should be established with access to the federal court of appeals for the local circuit.

3. Means of Violence - This one is almost impossible to control, because there are millions of firearms in circulation, and people will not cooperate with attempts to reduce that number. Also, a process of substitution will drive attackers into using other means, such as knives, gasoline, cars, planes etc...

Yet they are obsessing about guns and slighting the first two? I thought that many of the European countries, whose laws they are so enamored of, place restrictions on the media.

 

[Rod Snell]

IMHO, you are making the erroneous assumption that the current Federal administration has any real interest in solving the problem.
The agenda is to disarm the public, i.e., take YOUR guns. It is about CONTROL, and transforming America into a socialist dictatorship, which can't be done with an aware, armed public.
There were many more murders in Chicago than in Oregon, but not one word about that........Chicago already has the restrictive laws being pushed, and it is not politically correct to point out they don't reduce crime.

 

[RETOKSQUID]

Well your first M would cause many more people than you think to loose their rights.
Here is a very short list of medications that meet your 1st M. Know any one who takes one. Good chance that you do. By the way these are all NON Anti depression/psychotic meds.

Chantix
High blood pressure meds such as Inderal & beta blockers
Contraceptives, wife or girlfriend take birth control pills?
Corticosteroids
Interferon-beta (arthritis and immunologic medication)
Anti-seizure medications
Asthma and allergy medications such as Singular
Antibiotics such as Accutane, Cipro and gentamicin
Synthroid and other thyroid hormone replacement meds
ALCOHOL, well hell, there is just about everyone there!
Insomnia meds
Migraine medications
Heart medications such as Calcium channel blockers
Statins such as Lipitor
Zovirax used to treat shingles
Meds such as Cymbalta that are used to treat conditions other than depression such as nerve pain
Non-narcotic pain medications

This is not a complete list, just the ones I could remember off the top of my head.

 

[Dave70968]

Well, you're doing a fine job of crapping on the First and Second Amendments; anything else you'd like to get rid of while you're at it?

 

[Roadkill Coyote]

Well your first M would cause many more people than you think to loose their rights.

No, I'm well aware that my initial suggestion might be too broad, as I said "We can argue about the details, like which drugs should be on the list". But I stand by my argument that changes in the mental health system have resulted in many people who would have previously been adjudicated or committed walking around unsupervised in the community. Medication has replaced confinement, and that was the previous standard for restricting purchase and possession. If we are going to have a mental health restriction at all, then we have to update how we recognize that status. The current standard is based on a system that has largely discarded the mechanism we continue to use as a metric. It's broken, and in all likelihood there will be some reform in the next few years, the only question is whether we hash out some objective standards, of wait for the other side to enact a draconian solution based on the feels.

Dave70968

Well, you're doing a fine job of crapping on the First and Second Amendments; anything else you'd like to get rid of while you're at it?

I would also like to get rid of bitter sarcasm that doesn't contribute to online discussions, but the windmill may be too large, and even I feel the breeze.

On a more serious note, I do believe people with serious mental illness should be prohibited from purchasing a firearm. I suspect that you find my suggestion far to broad, and I'm certainly willing to entertain other suggestions. You're not giving me enough details to go beyond that. As for the First Amendment issue, somewhere out there, the next killer is watching this media orgy, and receiving the reinforcement, the empowerment, that will lead directly to another attack. I think we should stop this ongoing positive reinforcement by the least intrusive mean possible, if you have a less intrusive suggestion, feel free to contribute.

 

[twoguns?]

And there it is ...good suggestions, but what freedoms are you willing to give up so people that wont protect themselves feel safe
I and many choose to be responsible for our and our Familys well being
I don't look forward to giving up too many more freedoms

 

[raeken45]

So give the imperial federal government the ability to control all of the media, all of the drugs, and access to everybody's medical records? I can't imagine that going wrong for the American public.

 

[zork]

There is already a mental health provision that bans purchasing guns. If one has ever been an inpatient to a mental facility, that info is supposed to be available to background checking to prevent one from being able to buy a gun. But there are thousands of mentally ill persons who self-medicate with alcohol and illegal drugs that won't be picked up in a background check.

So, if a person realizes they need help and go to a doc who prescribes a drug with a possible side effect of "suicidal ideation," they would not be able to purchase a gun. But if the self-medicating nutcase finds out they can't keep their demons under control anymore, and decide to "go out in a blaze of glory," they can buy all the guns they want! Wow!

 

[Roadkill Coyote]

but what freedoms are you willing to give up

1. The freedom of serious the seriously mentally ill to purchase and possess firearms, which we, as a people, already gave up decades ago.
All we are discussing now is how to determine who is seriously mentally ill. People who used to qualify are being left out, on the street, and
some of them are committing horrible crimes.

2. The freedom of large commercial news organizations like ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and FOX to publish the names and images of mass murders.
Again and again, we are giving these murders exactly the thing they most desire, national attention. As long as we do so, others will see large
scale murder as a successful strategy to obtain the same. We are rewarding this behavior, and as long as we do so the behavior will be repeated.

 

[dennishoddy]

1. The freedom of serious the seriously mentally ill to purchase and possess firearms, which we, as a people, already gave up decades ago.
All we are discussing now is how to determine who is seriously mentally ill. People who used to qualify are being left out, on the street, and
some of them are committing horrible crimes.

2. The freedom of large commercial news organizations like ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and FOX to publish the names and images of mass murders.
Again and again, we are giving these murders exactly the thing they most desire, national attention. As long as we do so, others will see large
scale murder as a successful strategy to obtain the same. We are rewarding this behavior, and as long as we do so the behavior will be repeated.

I agree with a lot of what your saying, especially in the second point.

The first point is left to so much discussion and abuse by powers that be, that its not defendable.

Obama's administration has already tried to call vets returning from combat zones incapable of owning firearms.