[Only a Problem in USA] Mass shooting in Jacksonville

The legality of it would simply require congress pass the appropriate laws

Even then, there is enough waste in DC and various level of govt that I have little problem with a tab that may actually save lives

 

Simply not true unless the government was providing the evaluations free of charge. If they weren't, it would be equivalent to a poll tax and would be struck down as unconstitutional.

Either way, your suggestion is a non-starter. You already have the legislation banning mentally ill people from owning firearms, the cost and ridiculousness of your proposal wouldn't be accepted given that it wouldn't do much good to begin with.

 

Even if guns were outlawed tomorrow, we'd have mass shootings like this for decades to come. Guns don't expire or rust away, and there are more guns than people. So we can fight a fruitless fight against guns, or we can actually focus on the areas where we can make a difference. The anti-gun movement is even more fruitless than Christian Conservatives fighting women's rights and LGBT rights. Guns are here to stay, sorry - blame our founding fathers.

The failed war on drugs, and mental health are the two leading causes of gun violence... and that is a fact. That is where our focus should be. This was yet another mass shooter who had a clear history of mental health issues, and who illegally had a gun he wasn't supposed to. Gun laws did nothing here to save anyone, and additional laws wouldn't do anything either.

 

California already requires a FSC Test and I dont see anyone stating it is uncosntitutional

Yes we should just sit and watch innocent lives taken - no thanks

 

What you are suggesting would save literally no one....you realize that right? As to California, that's a joke of a state to begin with. If challenged, I think it would just be a matter of time before the fees were eliminated.

 

So according to you periodic screening that could identify psychos before they go on killing sprees would save no one but having everyone's bags checked at an hotel will - great!!!

 

Well, the kind of screening you are talking about would be unconstitutional, so it's not even worth talking about. Even if it was instituted, it would help almost no one given that it is already illegal for people with mental conditions to own firearms.....and that's talking about the short time between the law being passed and it being struck down.

It would certainly be less effective than ensuring soft targets have adequate security.....but again, you aren't actually trying to solve the problem, you are looking for a way to attack gun owners....it's pretty transparent.

 

It no more unconstitutional than FSC and your claims that it would be struck down is baseless and pure fantasy of your mind.

Such a process would help identify people with mental issues and not have to wait till they do something crazy. But seems you dont want that and would rather see them go on a killing spree, kill themselves and then we can withdraw their guns.

The problem with your proposed solution, beyond providing higher security at significant gatherings, is that it is not sustainable, unless you want to turn the whole country into a war zone where everyone is armed. I personally dont want to see firearms in places like schools. There are several countries without the high frequency of mass murder you see in the US and they have not resorted to putting armed gaurds at every single 'soft target' like you are proposing. But then, they also dont have the free access to firearms that you and your likes earnestly desire.

I am in support of responsible gun ownership, with emphasis on 'responsible' and definitely not for every psycho to own a gun

 

I'm guessing the main argument against permanent metal detectors in more public places is the cost of the security workers who are checking you. Correct ? More taxes ?

Particularly though, this incident in Jacksonville was actually obvious. The security should've been better.

 

A few things.

1. You are the one fantasizing about a policy that has literally no chance of being passed and it's clearly unconstitutional....you are just too "special" to know better.

2. The security that I am talking about already happens, and the country isn't a police state or a war zone as a result......so that suggestion is just laughably ridiculous. I'm just suggesting using similar security at more events in order to eliminate as many "soft targets" as practical.

3. Other countries aren't the US, they have different people, different cultures, and different situations.

4. You keep talking about "psycho" people owning guns which is already illegal.....so saying you support preventing that is pretty stupid given that everyone is against that....which is why it's already illegal.

5. I'm the only person proposing actual changes that could actually happen. Fantasies about adding extra "poll taxes" to gun ownership in order to make it more difficult for people, especially minorities, to exercise their civil rights will always fail. Just because the "poll tax" in California hasn't been struck down yet doesn't change that.

 

Also, from what many of the gamers were saying, it's something that has been brought up over and over again. They've needed better security for years, but it seems that people will wait till a tragedy happens to add security that would have prevented the issue.

 

So what are the biggest opposing arguments ?

The laws ARE what they are RIGHT NOW, so Jacksonville was simply irresponsible to have happened. Have more security.

Beyond that... what's the argument ?

One side wants Guns and more Metals Detectors -- vs -- the other side that wants Gun Control and no Metal Detectors ?

After that's answered.... is money affecting people's decision ? Taxes ?

I haven't thought too deeply on this subject, just thinking out loud.

I have guns, and plan to have more. I don't hunt nor do I chastise anyone who does.

I own for protection, but would I feel the need if guns were illegal ? My first thought is I'd still want one, just in case. I might wanna help someone on side of the highway. I'd rather have a gun while attempting.

BUT -- and this could be ringer -- I was burglarized a few years ago and a gun was stolen. So there's another one on the streets illegally.

 

I support a gun ban but it won't do anything with 200 million in circulation, a black market looming, and a culture of entitlement and violent frustration.

In this case, he was autistic and had mental issues to the point he was institutionalized , yet all he had to do was lie on a form despite being on anti depressants and anti psychotics. There should be a national registrar that every gun seller is linked to containing information based on all criminal history regardless of whether it can be expunged later, all medical prescriptions and any mental health history whatsoever. No one on anti depressants or anti psychotics should hold a gun, nor should they have kids really.

 

BobboTheClown doesn't want a psych eval for obvious reasons.

 

This is exactly the **** people should be furious about. A proper system would have prevented him from legally buying guns. Would that have made it impossible for him to obtain a gun? No, but it would have made it more difficult, it could have been the difference that saved these innocent people from being terrorized, shot and murdered.

The right to buying a gun should be very similar to getting a drivers license IMO. Month-long courses with multiple tests, yearly mental checkups, and a system with constant supervision for any crimes committed, or mental health issues that would allow law enforcement to strip you of your guns. We owe it the current and future victims and families.

 

Probably cos he would get found out

 

Learning more now, it's beyond stupid this guy could legally purchase a firearm after having a history of poor mental health. Preventing his purchase wouldn't solve the problem, but it's an obvious step in the right direction. The event should've obviously had better security also.

 

Bullying contributes to the problem. If society wants to see a reduction in these mass shootings, we should be more accepting of others. I don't agree with many of Bobby's views, but I respect them as long as it doesn't infringe on others. And if it does, blasting him for it is unlikely to change his views. Rather it could further push him closer to the edge. For all this talk of improving mental health, realize it starts with how you treat others. Don't rely on a therapist to fix someone.

 

Agreed, it seems they need to make changes with how the background checks are done, there's no reason why a history of mental illness like this kid had shouldn't have popped up and prevented the legal purchase. At the same time, for reasons you've brought up, people can still get guns illegally (like the guy who robbed you) so additional security is still needed. If both improvements happened, it prevents this tragedy.

 

Perhaps reconsidering the rule that sent records of beneficiaries with severe mental disabilities to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System?

Trump Undid Obama Rule That Added Mentally Ill People to Gun Check Register

http://fortune.com/2018/02/15/trump-shooting-mental-illness/