I’m getting so sick of these brown illegals shooting up these places
- Thread starter HerdBuckeye
- Start date
Ok thanks for the link. Did you look through the source data? They are using the 4 people injured definition not the 4 people killed which I believe is what the fbi uses. They also include gang violence and home invasions.
Marine Corps commandant refereed to him as a ex-marine.
Gen Robert B Neller:
Heartfelt condolences to those suffering from the tragic & senseless act of violence #ThousandOaks. That ex-Marine's despicable actions run counter to what the vast majority of veterans are rightfully known for: serving w/ honor then making positive contributions to society
I assume when stating we need more of something logical people would understand the law also needs overhauled.
The Florida school shooter: def should have been somewhere. This new guy: is looking that way.
Trying to decide which people with mental illness should be put somewhere is a difficult and slippery slope. Here are some statistics from the National Alliance on Mental Illness...
- Approximately 1 in 5 adults in the U.S.—43.8 million, or 18.5%—experiences mental illness in a given year.1
- Approximately 1 in 25 adults in the U.S.—9.8 million, or 4.0%—experiences a serious mental illness in a given year that substantially interferes with or limits one or more major life activities.2
- Approximately 1 in 5 youth aged 13–18 (21.4%) experiences a severe mental disorder at some point during their life. For children aged 8–15, the estimate is 13%.3
- 1.1% of adults in the U.S. live with schizophrenia.4
- 2.6% of adults in the U.S. live with bipolar disorder.5
- 6.9% of adults in the U.S.—16 million—had at least one major depressive episode in the past year.6
- 18.1% of adults in the U.S. experienced an anxiety disorder such as posttraumatic stress disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder and specific phobias.7
- Among the 20.2 million adults in the U.S. who experienced a substance use disorder, 50.5%—10.2 million adults—had a co-occurring mental illness.8
These are large numbers. There's no way we could effectively identify from this large group which ones should be detained in treatment centers in fear that they will act out violently. Not only are there not enough facilities, no way we could accurately assess the ones prone to violence without denying basic human rights to many who would likely never act out.
This is one of those situations that is a sad reality without any effective way to deal with due to the inexact nature of the issue.
Couldn't they all simply be shipped off to Alaska? Surely, the state is big enough to house them all. Or squeeze them all into California. Have to think 1/2 of those on your list already live in California. So, send them all to Cali, and build the wall around the state.
What? No mention of an earthquake causing California to slip into the Pacific thus solving all of our problems?
Have to admit . . . I like your idea better than mine.
If their rights are not denied at a hearing and a judge determines they are a danger, no basic human rights have been denied.
We create a huge chunk of the homelessness issue when we put the seriously mentally ill on the streets, with no guarantee they will have the necessities of food and shelter. Just a "please come to your appointments and get your meds". That was denying basic human rights.
Last edited:
I want to make sure I am getting your (and potentially liarherdfan's) position straight:
You want to give large amounts of money to build, open, and staff many mental facilities. You want to use our police resources to put a focus on detaining those they believe may have mental issues. You then want our resources and courts used to determine if somebody should be detained for a certain period of time in one of these new facilities. You then claim we will have to change laws to be able to do this.
On the other hand, there is no talk about making common sense gun laws that make the process of possessing/purchasing guns simply to the level of the process of possessing a driver's license.
That would be like trying to individually chase down each escaped cow that keeps flowing out of the barn instead of shutting the door to the barn so they all can't continue escaping.
What specific type of "common sense" gun laws (preventing mentally ill gun owners) do you propose, that would not impact the increased funding needed to serve these same people?
There are numerous ones:
1) Mandatory, universal background checks. This does away with the "gunshow loophole/flea market sales." I can't buy numerous things without proving that I am of a certain age. Guns should be no different.
2) Federal database of all guns. Owners are obligated to immediately report all stolen weapons.I can't drive/buy a car without it being registered. Guns should be the same. The DMV isn't coming to take away your guns anytime soon. The feds also aren't doing it with your guns.
3) No person-to-person transactions unless they have the ability to access the universal background system. For the most part, I can't sell a bottle of wine from my collection to a buyer if neither of us have a license.
4) Tougher penalties for those who violate any of the gun sale/possession laws.
5) Tougher, mandatory state requirements of reporting those who have been admitted, voluntarily or not, for mental issues.
On the other hand is apples and oranges. If guns did not exist I would still tell you I believe our mental health system is broken.
Surprise, our resources and courts are already used to determine involuntary commitment. We have just changed the laws to set the bar too high. Again, here it is actual mental incompetence, a standard that requires you are no longer eligible for self-guardianship (and a statement from a physician that has treated them in the last 30 days!). Mental incompetence? I have plenty of IDD folks on my caseload that don't even meet that standard.
I'll stick with Indiana because it is what I know best. Build lots of new facilities? Sure, if that is because the 80s combo of well-meaning liberal bleeding hearts and government hating conservatives destroyed the facilities we had in place. The number of public beds? The excepted standard for number of psych beds is 50 per 100k population. In Indiana we have 12. Yay. Even if law enforcement gets you en emergency hold for 72 hours AND you actually need long-term in patient treatment, where in the fvck are they going to send you? We have exactly 818 beds.
To be honest, we did build more facilities. Prison and jail facilities. That's where we now warehouse the mentally ill. I guess we just hope they don't kill a dozen people before they get a felony record and can't buy a gun.
You know what I say to a mandatory background check if you and I want to swap rifles? The same as I say if we want to swap beers and you think we should check ID's: fvck that, and fvck the states that prohibit it. And no, you do not have to check an ID to private sell a bottle of wine, Jesus Christ where do you get that from? Unless Texas has some weird-assed alcohol laws; Indiana just finally allowed alcohol sales on Sunday and we don't even give a shit as long as you are not selling to kids. Are you implying you would just want to be sure? You can do the same when you sell a gun, you and the buyer go down to the local sheriff's office and they will gladly run a check. Which would certainly cut down on the likelihood a felon wants to buy your gun, I am sure that is the last place they want to go with criminal intent.
No actual FFL gun dealer can sell at a show without a check and the paperwork. You know this.
You can buy cars all day long without registration as long as they are not for on-road use. You ever notice race cars do not have plates? Yeah, they don't have registrations or titles, either. You transfer by bill of sale only. That's not really a good comparison, like could I buy a gun and not register it as long as it was for range-use only, or hunting on my land only?
I would support civil and criminal liability if you private sell to a felon. Shittons of liability. I support a ten year mandatory sentence for criminal possession of a firearm. I support a goddamn vibrant system of mental health records.
I'm guessing that is your way of saying exactly what I said: you want to build substantially more facilities for the mentally ill to be housed involuntarily, you want to use our police and court resources to a far higher degree to monitor and commit people to facilities, you want to change our laws to give police/courts more power and less restrictions in committing mentally ill, all while ignoring the bigger issue.
First, don't misrepresent what I said. I didn't say you had to check an ID to private sell a bottle of wine. My exact quote was "For the most part, I can't sell a bottle of wine from my collection to a buyer if neither of us have a license." Checking an ID has absolutely no relevance, because regardless if you check it or not, you're still breaking the fvcking law.
Where did I get that from? My head, because I don't say shit I am not sure about. It's not even something I have to look up. It's illegal in the U.S. for a person to sell alcohol without a license to another person without a license. In other words, "For the most part, I can't sell a bottle of wine from my collection to a buyer if neither of us have a license."
Assuming you actually research that and see that I am correct, you're now arguing for having far tighter restrictions on selling a bottle of wine than you are for somebody selling a couple of handguns and a couple of ARs. See how fvcked up it is, just like with the driver's license analogy?
Well, you're misrepresenting again. I didn't say anything about a licensed seller. I clearly mentioned the gunshow loophole/flea market situation. In many states, including all but a handful of counties in Florida, I can bring a few handguns and a few ARs down to my local flea market and sell them for a profit without having to do any background checks, without having to check IDs, without any bill of sale, etc.
My bad...I thought you meant check their license, as in card them. I can tell you in Indiana you do not need a "liquor license" (let's use that as a catch-all, because there are 50 different sorts of alcohol licenses based on package sales, grocery sales, by the drink sales, outdoor special events sales, production license, winery, etc.) to occasionally sell a bottle from your collection. All the licenses here are based on retail sales to the public or wholesale operations. There are wine and beer clubs here where bottles are exchanged/sold among members and I have never heard of one being raided by the Excise Police...and those motherfvckers will raid anything.
Flea market? Sure you can do that. You better not make a habit of doing that without a FFL, because you would be in the part time business of selling firearms for profit, which requires a FFL. I would have no problem with brightlining it to, say,five a year so there is no gray area. Five sounds good, here if you sell five cars a year you must be a licensed car dealer, the exception being bill of sale not for road use vehicles.
My opinion on a total revamping of how we deal with mental health issues has very, very little to do with nuts who become mass shooters/guns. It has a lot more to do with getting people who have issues out of jail and into mental health treatment and being sure people who are a danger to themselves and others cannot be ignored by the system because the county jail, when they fvck up, is the only place to put them. It has a lot more to do with the chronically mental ill in the homeless population. Again, if guns did not exist I would still feel this way. I'd also vastly increase access to outpatient therapy...unless you have insurance, and good insurance at that, you will wait at least six months here for an outpatient appointment. I know this because in my job I sometimes have to get people into that system, and even being a position where I know people and I can pull some strings it still takes fvcking forever to get a new patient in and established.
You can say whatever you want, but you're wrong. That's illegal. It is hard to enforce? Sure. Does it make it legal? No.
Alcohol laws aren't like gun laws where you can make an occasional sale from your private gun collection and not be breaking the law.
And that doesn't make it legal. Here is an article of a very similar situation, albeit in Virginia, where the seller was arrested. It discusses the rare selling of a single bottle from a private collection, wine groups, etc.:
https://www.winespectator.com/webfe...sted-for-Selling-Bottle-From-Own-Cellar_20367
All that is fine. But it wouldn't solve any of these shootings. Liarherdfan is also welcome to chime in and explain.
None of these shooters would have been in a situation where a judge could send them to a facility. None of these guys had their mental health substituted for being put in the local slammer.
So how is your plan (both you and liarherdfan's) going to reduce these shootings? There are plenty of countries who fail as much or more than the U.S. at handling mental health of its citizens. These countries also don't have nearly the murder rate that the U.S. does. So if many countries are just as bad (or worse) at handling mental health of its citizens, if we are the only one that has such ease of availability to guns, and if we have such a higher murder rate than all of them, what is a reasonable conclusion?
Is it that we are soft on murderers/crime? Considering we are one of the few countries that still use the death penalty, and the only one among our peers, that doesn't seem legit. Is it because we have poor citizens which leads to violence? That doesn't seem reasonable considering our place in the world economy.
Nothing you or liarherdfan have proposed would have stopped those mass shootings. Numerous other countries are just as bad at treating mental health as we are. Those same countries somehow have far lower murder rates than the U.S. What's the major difference between the U.S. and all of those peer countries? None of them have 350+ million guns floating around the country with little restrictions on them.
I could find NOTHING in Indiana law that prohibits the booze situation we were discussing. You think I pulled 50 types of licenses out of my ass? I researched this shit. I'll ask a IEP cop next time I see one...
How do you know what a judge would do if the law was different and we actually had facility space? How do you know the crisis intervention officer would not have sent the Thousand Oaks shooter in for a 72 hour hold and hearing? You don't, because you are basing your opinion off of what happened under current law and a huge lack of psych beds.
What you are arguing sounds like a de-facto ban on private gun ownership (ban handguns and while I might be able to hunt with a long-gun, my right to self-defense has been greatly infringed, and that's the whole goddamn point). And you are a gun owner....do you think you would get some kind of special treatment? This is going to sound so cliche, but do you know what else those other countries do not have in the same amount as the USA? Freedom. Sometimes freedom is messy.
I almost had to draw on someone last night. If I didn't have my car doors locked there is a good chance I would have had to (long story short, I was stopped and someone tried to get in my passenger door). I'm not giving up my right to self-defense because others cannot handle that right.
You're killing me, Raoul. I don't say shit that isn't true. If I don't know something, I would not say anything . . . or I would educate myself. As I said last week, this isn't something I even had to look up to confidently state what's true: selling even one bottle from your private collection without a permit is illegal.
My brother owned a wine store for a few years in one of the wealthiest towns in the country before it was bought by the company he works for now which is one of the biggest wine auction houses in the world. He spends a significant amount of time in the Far East and Europe appraising extremely valuable private collections of wine.
Here's one comment about it:
Selling your wine by yourself online or in-person is much more difficult and risky; selling wine on your own, without a license, is illegal in the U.S.
http://blog.vinfolio.com/2017/04/12/sell-wine-complete-guide-liquidating-fine-wine-collection/
Here's some specific Indiana penal code:
IC 7.1-5-10-2
Sec. 2. Unauthorized Sales Prohibited. It is unlawful for a permittee to recklessly sell, keep for sale, barter, furnish, or give away an alcoholic beverage which he is not entitled to sell, keep for sale, barter, furnish, or give away under his permit.
IC 7.1-5-10-3
Sec. 3. Unauthorized Dealings Prohibited. It is unlawful for a person who is not a permittee to recklessly give away or furnish, to a person other than a guest or a member of his family, or to recklessly sell, barter, or exchange, an alcoholic beverage unless he is expressly authorized to do so by this title.
IC 7.1-5-10-5
Sec. 4. Sale of Untaxed Alcoholic Beverages Prohibited. It is unlawful for a person to recklessly sell, give, withdraw for sale or gift, offer for sale, display, barter, exchange, purchase, receive, possess, transport, or store an alcoholic beverage upon which the appropriate excise tax and applicable license fee have not been paid. (Formerly: Acts 1973, P.L.55, SEC.1; Acts 1973, P.L.56, SEC.35.) As amended by Acts 1978, P.L.2, SEC.717.
IC 7.1-5-10-7
Sec. 5. Sale Without Permit Prohibited. It is unlawful for a person, except as otherwise permitted by this title, to purchase, receive, manufacture, import, or transport, or cause to be imported or transported from another state, territory, or country, into this state, or transport, ship, barter, give away, exchange, furnish, or otherwise handle, or dispose of an alcoholic beverage, or to possess an alcoholic beverage for purpose of sale. It is unlawful, also, for a person knowingly to receive or acquire an alcoholic beverage from a person who does not hold, unrevoked, the appropriate permit under this title to sell, deliver, furnish, or give the alcoholic beverage to him.
IC 7.1-5-10-7
Sec. 7. Purchase from Non-Permittee Prohibited. It is a Class C infraction for a person knowingly to purchase, or to agree to purchase, an alcoholic beverage from a person who does not at the time of the purchase hold a permit authorizing the seller to sell, or agree to sell, the alcoholic beverage to the purchaser.
How do I know? Because a judge would never be involved since the overwhelming number of these mass shooters would not have been impacted by any changes in the laws you are desiring. Many of them hadn't been a serious mental threat or red flag to a reporting agency in the recent past.
You base that on what? Nothing I have said, including the numerous common sense gun regulations, is a de facto ban on gun ownership.
And some bizarre country could allow their citizens to have any weapon of mass destruction they'd like, and that country would claim that the U.S. doesn't have freedom.
Gun regulations aren't a restriction on freedom any more than needing a driver's license to drive a car and/or have your car registered to drive it on public roads is a restriction of your freedom to drive.
For the third time I will ask - open to anyone - why our peer nations treat mental health much the way that we do and have such drastically lower murder rates/such low mass killings?
When you compare gun statistics to Nations with de-facto bans on handguns, you are opening your argument to that assumption.
Understand this: I firmly believe we have an inalienable right to self-defense. IDGAF if England has very few gun murders...England denies basic human rights with a de-facto ban on weapons of self-defense. They can have their tryanny, I don't want it.
1) Mandatory, universal background checks. This does away with the "gunshow loophole/flea market sales." I can't buy numerous things without proving that I am of a certain age. Guns should be no different. not sure why any law abiding citizen would have an issue with this.
2) Federal database of all guns. Owners are obligated to immediately report all stolen weapons.I can't drive/buy a car without it being registered. Guns should be the same. The DMV isn't coming to take away your guns anytime soon. The feds also aren't doing it with your guns. the concern with this is the talking point that once big bro knows where all the guns are, it'd make it much easier to come get them. i understand that's not your intention, but this would be construed as simply a step in the direction of getting rid of all guns.
3) No person-to-person transactions unless they have the ability to access the universal background system. For the most part, I can't sell a bottle of wine from my collection to a buyer if neither of us have a license. same reaction as point number 1 above.
4) Tougher penalties for those who violate any of the gun sale/possession laws. absolutely in favor of.
5) Tougher, mandatory state requirements of reporting those who have been admitted, voluntarily or not, for mental issues. see response to 4.
for the most part, i'm actually with you on this. then again (believe it or not), i'm a law abiding citizen.....for the most part. since my kid has gotten into hunting and firearms, i've purchased on average 2 a year. we've gone from a 3 or 4 gun household to a 20 gun household. a couple pistols, a couple really cool "assault" style firearms, one a 9mm pistol type, another the standard AR model, a couple long rifle target guns, and several hunting rifles. most have been registered, some haven't, i.e. purchased one springfield pistol from a private individual, have had several firearms given to my kid from my bro, dad, and inlaws.
