I was really hoping the teenage survivors of the shooting would start some type of movement. With social media, I hope these kids can motivate the silent masses that support gun control.
I imagine the NRA will just begin dismissing them as just 'kids'.
The Following User Says Thank You to bob-loblaw For This Useful Post:
I was really hoping the teenage survivors of the shooting would start some type of movement. With social media, I hope these kids can motivate the silent masses that support gun control. I imagine the NRA will just begin dismissing them as just 'kids'.
Expect major events/announcements/distractions coming from the white house around the same time as any meaningful movement comes about from this.
The Following User Says Thank You to jayswin For This Useful Post:
The Baby Boom generation came of age in the 60’s and 70’s and were also called “The Protest Generation” and originators of the “Counterculture Movement.”
“Don’t Trust Anyone Over 30” was a slogan that came from that generation.
Now they’re apparently the conservative, intransigent, 60 and 70 year olds young people of today are angry at.
Some things never change.
To illustrate, right after reading this post I saw this. Fox News interviews Parkland students planning to protest in Washington only to bring on gasbag Rush Limbaugh to put them in their place. https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2...h-mocks/219423
i hope that they continue to rally and bring in other kids and families from the innumerable other mass shootings around the US
one incident is easily forgotten, a few voices will be lost in the noise, but the power of all these voices, coordinating their efforts together towards a unified goal would be extremely powerful...
Gun control activists plan US school walkoutshttps://www.wptv.com/news/national/students-activists-plan-national-walkouts-to-protest-congress-inaction-on-gun-control
Students at Olympic Heights walk out, protesthttps://www.wptv.com/news/region-s-palm-beach-county/students-at-olympic-heights-high-school-walk-out-to-protest-gun-violence
Students at Olympic Heights walk out, protesthttps://www.wptv.com/news/region-s-palm-beach-county/students-at-olympic-heights-high-school-walk-out-to-protest-gun-violence
Meh.
What high school student wouldn't go along with a walk-out, regardless of the underlying reason for it?
What some of the students are saying is admirable, I suppose, but it is mostly just words and they have very little political power to do anything.
In a few months, their words will largely be forgotten, just like those that were voiced by the parents and students of Columbine, Sandy Hook, Virginia Tech, Aztec High, and elsewhere.
So I need to go here, and I'm sorry but I know how I feel about gun control.
But they're talking about the whole denial of weapons for mentally ill people.
but how do we define denial
Actual criminal convictions is suppossed to be a reason to deny right now correct.
But how do we deny based on mental illness.
Do they have to be diagnosed and that on the record? Because I don't think that doctors are required to report a diagnosis of mental illnesses into any database that's accessible for the purpose of approving or denying gun ownership.
How about the phone in complaints? I don't think that has any kind of standing in terms of denying gun ownership, because phone in tips by people cannot ever be a diagnosis, and tips are tips and that's all they are without investigation, so where is that line drawn.
On top of it, are facebook pages a strong basis for denial? People vent and blow off steam, and I'm sure that there are enough stupid people in a day that threaten violence or others. But there's no way to track face book rants.
I think that in order for people to have a proper discussion around denial for reasons of mental illness, there needs to be a discussion around where that line is.
Looking at the current shooter who's name I will not mention. While he had been seeing a therapist, there wasn't a diagnosis on the record, and from listening to his guardians he wasn't taking drugs.
While there were complaints about him being violent, I don't think he'd been convicted of an offence. he'd been kicked out of school, but is that a legal conviction? Not really.
How about the facebook posts and complaints? Where would that go on the record unless we're now talking minority report style law enforcements.
I'm just trying to understand the structure that people want.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Very good questions, when it comes to mental health it is still not proactive, because being proactive it is way to easy to trample peoples rights. I've been before a judge and it is almost impossible to have someone committed without them actually having done harm to someone or themselves.
I don't think there was anything in this shooters history that would have been grounds for denying him any rights.
Very good questions, when it comes to mental health it is still not proactive, because being proactive it is way to easy to trample peoples rights. I've been before a judge and it is almost impossible to have someone committed without them actually having done harm to someone or themselves.
I don't think there was anything in this shooters history that would have been grounds for denying him any rights.
Therein lies the problem, gun ownership/possession should be considered a privilege not a right. Make a stupid Facebook rant? You’re in the “sin bin” til you can prove your comments were a childish rant. Never been diagnosed with a mental illness but you’ve had numerous complaints made to the police about your erratic behaviour or worse police have had to apprehend you under the mental health act, then no guns for you. This is far too important an issue to be laissez faire.
The Following User Says Thank You to Zulu29 For This Useful Post:
Ok, I get what your saying, but any kind of change like that has to be able to survive the courts.
And those ideas won't.
Protests are great, anger is great, I'm onboard absolutely with gun control.
More vigorous back ground checks is absolutely right, but that has to be defined and challenge proof.
Removing things like bump stock availability and bigger magazines and even redefining restrictive fire arms are realistic.
However at some point, protests have to move from we want change, to how we want that change to look at actually discussions or platforms of change or protests fizzle out.
A facebook rant is not a conviction, I'm just playing devils advocate here, but a facebook rant isn't going to hold up by itself unless your ok with minority report law enforcement. A rant on its own before a crime is committed is grounds for literally nothing.
Patient doctor confidentiality is a key tenant that you would have to break.
What's defined mental illness, if I see a therapist is that a denial grounds? Because if you do that, you will actually see less people seeking help.
Is a diagnosis where a patient is actively getting treatment either through therapy or drugs enough?
Like I said, I'm onboard, but these ideas will die the minute that Congress votes for it or a President signs an executive order because it will almost instantly be fought in court and probably over turned.
Right now background checks are based around things like convictions of previous crimes. Of documentation of people being voluntarily or involuntarily being committed for treatment.
How do you expand that?
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Also I want to focus around the privilege vs right argument.
I do agree with you, but by definition, its a right, sad but true. Due to the second amendment you have a right to bear arms and it works backwards from there, in terms of defining when your right can be overturned.
However adding an amendment to an amendment is going to be a huge fight that will have to pass every level of the courts and not just the Senate and Congress and the President.
At one point, I read that social services in the US are considered the third rail of American Government, basically if you touch it you die.
American gun ownership rights are not only the third rail, but the overhead electrical wire.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Ok, I get what your saying, but any kind of change like that has to be able to survive the courts.
And those ideas won't.
Protests are great, anger is great, I'm onboard absolutely with gun control.
More vigorous back ground checks is absolutely right, but that has to be defined and challenge proof.
Removing things like bump stock availability and bigger magazines and even redefining restrictive fire arms are realistic.
However at some point, protests have to move from we want change, to how we want that change to look at actually discussions or platforms of change or protests fizzle out.
A facebook rant is not a conviction, I'm just playing devils advocate here, but a facebook rant isn't going to hold up by itself unless your ok with minority report law enforcement. A rant on its own before a crime is committed is grounds for literally nothing.
Patient doctor confidentiality is a key tenant that you would have to break.
What's defined mental illness, if I see a therapist is that a denial grounds? Because if you do that, you will actually see less people seeking help.
Is a diagnosis where a patient is actively getting treatment either through therapy or drugs enough?
Like I said, I'm onboard, but these ideas will die the minute that Congress votes for it or a President signs an executive order because it will almost instantly be fought in court and probably over turned.
Right now background checks are based around things like convictions of previous crimes. Of documentation of people being voluntarily or involuntarily being committed for treatment.
How do you expand that?
With regards to the Facebook rants, it’s not a conviction, however, it is a glimpse into a persons psyche at that moment in time. If you post something threatening, etc on Facebook or any other social media platform, you can expect some follow up from the proper authorities. Just because social media allows a more wide range projections of your opinions or statements doesn’t mean anyone gets to hide behind it.
Also, doctors can be subpoenaed as well so the “privilege” you’re referring to is a bit of a misnomer.
I see you point on the therapy, however my argument would be that if you’re in therapy perhaps you should focus on that rather than purchasing a firearm.
It will take massive civil upheaval, it will take unprecedented gumption by politicians but the courts need to be brought to heel on this particular issue. The need for reform is unprecedented.
Finally as far as background checks go, I don’t believe criminal convictions should be required, a lower threshold should prevail. The onus should be on the individual to show why they should be allowed the privilege to own a firearm, not on the state.
Also I want to focus around the privilege vs right argument.
I do agree with you, but by definition, its a right, sad but true. Due to the second amendment you have a right to bear arms and it works backwards from there, in terms of defining when your right can be overturned.
However adding an amendment to an amendment is going to be a huge fight that will have to pass every level of the courts and not just the Senate and Congress and the President.
At one point, I read that social services in the US are considered the third rail of American Government, basically if you touch it you die.
American gun ownership rights are not only the third rail, but the overhead electrical wire.
I think on one of your earlier posts you touched on the fact that the gun control lobby would need to outraise the gun rights (NRA etc) lobby financially. Beat them at their own game, lobby hard, throw gobs of money, up the pressure on candidates, launch non stop lawsuits/challenges. Whatever it takes.
I'm not sure if sciencealert.com is a reputable source and the study doesn't seem to be very well established. But it's new. And not really surprising in its conclusions.
Again, I'm completely on board with gun control, I'm just trying to get a handle on what the realistic options are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zulu29
With regards to the Facebook rants, it’s not a conviction, however, it is a glimpse into a persons psyche at that moment in time. If you post something threatening, etc on Facebook or any other social media platform, you can expect some follow up from the proper authorities. Just because social media allows a more wide range projections of your opinions or statements doesn’t mean anyone gets to hide behind it.
First of all, who's going to track this and administer this and decide what posts are grounds for putting a person an a no guns list? This is a legal hornets nest. I read where the FBI gets 1500 tips a day and most are based around face book posts. Also again a post is not a crime, nor can any conviction be granted without a crime.
Can you even do something like this in the name of public safety, because frankly it goes against innocent before guilty, especially since no crime has been convicted.
We've all said that the idiot quota is filled daily by posts on forums and public media. I just don't see how anything like this can be enforced.
I mean are you ok with Kathy Griffin for example being put on a watch list and heavily investigated because she held up a bloody fake head of Donald Trump.
I would argue by being able to change people's status based on social media, but the other side will argue that this is the first step to a police state.
Also lets say that this guy goes online and says I'm going to murder people. They dispatch the FBI and he says, look, I was angry and I was blowing off steam, I would never ever do anything like this, then are you obligated to remove the whole he can't buy guns thing, or do you need to establish a whole other court system where a judge has to make that decision?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zulu29
Also, doctors can be subpoenaed as well so the “privilege” you’re referring to is a bit of a misnomer.
What's the grounds for the subpoena? What's the crime that's been committed? You're going to basically have to strike down the first amendment fights to self expression, the second amendment rights to fire arms will have to be redefined, and you're going to really clutter up the courts getting a subpoena, based on facebook posts or a threatening conversation.
On top of that, I would think that if that came to pass, that less people would actually seek treatment in help due to the fear of someone being able to pry into my private treatment without an actual crime being commitment.
I've used the term minority report style law enforcement, and I think that a lot of people want that right now because they're angry and they think that its the answer. But they probably will until it goes into effect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zulu29
I see you point on the therapy, however my argument would be that if you’re in therapy perhaps you should focus on that rather than purchasing a firearm.
Isn't that up to the individual. The therapist or Doctor certainly can't enforce it, they can suggest it. I think that what you're going to say is that if the therapist or doctor senses that there's a real threat, that he should be able to call a tip line that would create a record or even bring in law enforcement for the good of society. However again, I would worry about the impact for anyone that's seeking help for serious mental health issues or even addiction issues being willing to voluntarily ask for help from the system for fear that what they say can be laid bare without a crime being committed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zulu29
It will take massive civil upheaval, it will take unprecedented gumption by politicians but the courts need to be brought to heel on this particular issue. The need for reform is unprecedented.
What you're talking about is something like "Can nobody do something about this damn priest". Saying the courts need to be bought to heel is a frightening proposition. Just because you think that something is right doesn't mean that you can subvert the rule of law to make it happen, that leads to a government with way too much power.
The courts ask as a powerful check to government, but if you can suddenly have the government bringing the courts to heel. Or worse yet you suddenly want a fully electable supreme court that has to campaign on how they'd change the law instead of acting as priests to enforce and interpret the law, you have a really frightening concept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zulu29
Finally as far as background checks go, I don’t believe criminal convictions should be required, a lower threshold should prevail. The onus should be on the individual to show why they should be allowed the privilege to own a firearm, not on the state.
Until you have the discussion around privilege vs right and redefine the constitution, this is really not a discussion. I'm not trying to be a jerk here or say give everyone a gun. That's not the point of this.
Once you start eroding and redefining rights what goes next. Do people that do shootings lose their right to a defense attorney, does that become a privilege as well. What about the right to humane treatments, and even the rights to citizenship?
I know I'm being a bit over the top on the last part. But the point that I'm getting at, is if you start removing constitutional rights based on possibilities its not going to be a genie that you can put back in the bottle.
I firmly believe that the path to gun control is a mechanics issue instead of fighting constitutional battles.
I believe that gun control is based around enforcement and access, then guessing that someone is going to do harm.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
I think on one of your earlier posts you touched on the fact that the gun control lobby would need to outraise the gun rights (NRA etc) lobby financially. Beat them at their own game, lobby hard, throw gobs of money, up the pressure on candidates, launch non stop lawsuits/challenges. Whatever it takes.
Sanity has to prevail eventually.
I stand behind my statement.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
