The Wall Street Journal reports today that the shooter had a history of at least one mental break in which he fired a bullet through a wall.

Please find and read the article - anyone that requires law enforcement intervention taking half a day and firing a weapon through a wall should not be allowed a firearm.

The report that he was cleared by mental health evaluators as OK makes me insane.

In my opinion, that failure to disarm and prevent this tragedy rests in the lap of whatever city or
County performed the evaluation and failed to act!
Liability for this tragedy rests squarely on the California authority that allowed him to continue.

The left will use it to attack the GOP and it's insistence to let people run around willy-nilly with guns and no background checks. You know, because anyone can walk into a gun store and walk out with a machine gun, no questions asked.

OP -- that's where you're wrong, bud.

he's a murderer. his fault.

and if he is 'crazy' - he should be locked up in a ward somewhere but that's a whole other conversation

-------------------------------------

We can't have it both ways. Once we relegate authority to government to determine our suitability to do anything, government never gives that authority back willingly.

I don't disagree that an intervention was called for, just that the means of implementing that must be carefully examined.

Hmmm... you are correct. I still think the opportunity to prevent him from exercising his murderous intent was there and was not acted upon.

The situation will be exploited by gun control advocates, when, indeed, it was a government failure.

Disarm the nut cases that have the established potential for crimes and not the rest of us responsible owners.

I would rather a few crazies with guns run free that the many crazies in positions of power be (re-)elected, appointed and otherwise left in those positions.

If the balloon should go up, I want a fighting chance.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sig209:

and if he is 'crazy' - he should be locked up in a ward somewhere but that's a whole other conversation

An important conversation. Sig09, if the police were called because you tore uo your house and fired a bullet through a wall, what do you expect would be the outcome?


for me, here in Florida, my expectation would at least be a stay in there funny farm and likely criminal charges. What would be the outcome in your jurisdiction?

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
I would rather a few crazies with guns run free that the many crazies in positions of power be (re-)elected, appointed and otherwise left in those positions.

If the balloon should go up, I want a fighting chance.

+1.

Side note, my crystal ball says this thread will be hitting a brick wall.

quote:

Originally posted by slabsides45:
I don't disagree that an intervention was called for, just that the means of implementing that must be carefully examined.

That's the crux, many of the laws before the 70's allowed the police to confine individuals with mental/social issues were overturned, that along with a number of hospitals specializing in mental issues were closed so, resources in this area were cut. Advocates for mental health patients pushed for the roll-backs and the changing of policy resulted in parents of children having to care for their bi-polar/schizophrenic adult child on their own, while requiring enormous proof of danger in order to either confine them or, increase the amount of oversight & assistance.

I don't have any answer but, I do know, since those laws were changed:
1) There's less mental health assistance to those who are prone to be violent or have social difficulty.
2) There's a lot more people in population
3) There's a lot more firearm restrictions and laws than before.

tleddy, I'm saddened and horrified by the gunman's actions. I'm not privy to what took place at his home and why law enforcement didn't take further action (I'm sure they're following 5150 policy). It may have delayed his actions, but ultimately he may have had the same result.

My concern about the gov't deeming someone insane regarding gun ownership, it could easily progress (or regress) to where the gov't has the power to deem you sane enough to own a gun. The bar would be raised too high and only those with political connections would own guns.

A heavy handed government is exponentially more dangerous than such loons.

I neither want nor need my government to "protect me" from such people.

Freedom has its costs, and this tragedy is one of them.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
A heavy handed government is exponentially more dangerous than such loons.

I neither want nor need my government to "protect me" from such people.

Freedom has its costs, and this tragedy is one of them.

Sigh, thinking things through and not rushing to “For heaven’s sake do something!” leads one straight to the above conclusion. It may not be pretty, it may not be totally satisfying, but if we care about liberty and we think, that is where we end up.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
A heavy handed government is exponentially more dangerous than such loons.

I neither want nor need my government to "protect me" from such people.

Freedom has its costs, and this tragedy is one of them.

This is, and always has been, the sanest response to such events.

To quote he who shall not be named: "It's the new normal".

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by slosig:

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
A heavy handed government is exponentially more dangerous than such loons.

I neither want nor need my government to "protect me" from such people.

Freedom has its costs, and this tragedy is one of them.

Sigh, thinking things through and not rushing to “For heaven’s sake do something!” leads one straight to the above conclusion. It may not be pretty, it may not be totally satisfying, but if we care about liberty and we think, that is where we end up.

I do not have the crystal ball with the right answer. However - "crazy with a gun" is happening too often.

Any of us can probably call the ball on these when they happen. Known crazy. Known problem. Known dangerous. Nothing done til the murderer, well, became a murderer.

Mental health in this country is severely broken. While I'm not about to jump on the "just lock them up" bandwagon, we have GOT to do a better job as a nation at this.

Everybody knew that Cruz (Florida) was nuts. Nobody did anything until he killed a bunch of people. Now it seems the state knew this guy was at best violently unstable.

And their failure to act will be used to remind every American that any of millions of their fellow citizens, including every single member of this forum, might just snap at any moment, and for that reason, we must be disarmed.

Edit to add, just in case someone takes that the wrong way - of course I don't agree with that message. But that's already the message many are pushing, and we all know it.

With luck, and perseverance on our part, that will fail, but I fear we're gonna reach the wrong intersection of politics and public frustration eventually.

I do not accept this state of affairs.

This lunatics mom knew he was crazy and knew he had guns. He had been violent with her. She should have piped up about this a long time ago.

quote:

Originally posted by Dusty78:
This lunatics mom knew he was crazy and knew he had guns. He had been violent with her. She should have piped up about this a long time ago.

+1 Spot on observation.

I brought this topic to my students in class, in so much as it happened in our county and many are familiar with the venue. At the end of the day, if someone is willing to kill with no provocation or purpose, laws restricting the freedoms of all, will have little impact. This feels like new behaviour, but it is not. People have been evil or crazy since we crawled from the primordial ooze. Are guns more efficient than knives? Sure. But fertilizer and diesel fuel is even more efficient.
As for the 5150 aspect, many times the attending examiners are reluctant to commit, often for the worst of reasons, like trouble finding housing for the patient, or a myriad of other reasons that have less to do with diagnosis and more to do with bureaucracy. It's a shame and should be actionable.

quote:

Originally posted by Russ59:
My concern about the gov't deeming someone insane regarding gun ownership, it could easily progress (or regress) to where the gov't has the power to deem you sane enough to own a gun. The bar would be raised too high and only those with political connections would own guns.

Bingo.

History has shown us that giving the government power over an aspect of our lives inevitably leads to the government abusing that power to take more and more and more and... ad nauseam.

Sane people who trust the government will look at what happened with that man and cry "Why wasn't he prevented from possessing firearms?!?!" And, on the surface, that seems a reasonable question.

But then government starts lowering the bar on what qualifies as "not stable enough to own firearms" and, before you know it, we're all "insane." Unless we're connected, of course.