Shooting in Jacksonville Florida during a Madden 19 Tournament

[PApagreg]

Originally Posted by The Deadman

But the gun was the problem!
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/08/27...ents-show.html

Well he used the gun to kill people so maybe we should look how guns are treated in this country especially since the next quote is from your source.

Katz legally purchased his firearms — .45 caliber and 9mm handguns — in Baltimore, Maryland, Jacksonville Sheriff Mike Williams told reporters. He bought them within the past month from a licensed dealer, officials said.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by PApagreg

Well he used the gun to kill people so maybe we should look how guns are treated in this country especially since the next quote is from your source.

Irrelevant. It is a right. Unless you're a criminal (as in a convicted violent offender or a felon), that's your right. What happens after that, after the gun is in their hand, we can talk about how early warning signs could have been seen, how there could have been actionable this or actionable that... but there it is. It's not confusing.

[PApagreg]

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Irrelevant. It is a right. Unless you're a criminal (as in a convicted violent offender or a felon), that's your right. What happens after that, after the gun is in their hand, we can talk about how early warning signs could have been seen, how there could have been actionable this or actionable that... but there it is. It's not confusing.

I dont think its irrelevant to talk about whether or not we should give people who have serioud mental illness guns. Apparently we have the foresight not to give felons guns but apparently by your logic we should give guns to people with a history of mental illness no if, ands or buts. Also I dont think its so much as confusing as it is dumb

[Leo656]

Maybe more of a privilege, in the sense that it can and should be taken away for bad behavior.

For example, people convicted of even non-violent felonies can't legally buy or own a gun. Extreme, perhaps, but it makes sense.

I definitely think that people who have exhibited serious mental health issues - especially those who have been institutionalized and/or heavily medicated - should be kept away from buying guns. There definitely should be better records kept of the mentally ill, for one thing. As far as I know, there's nothing stopping a person who was institutionalized in Maine from buying a gun in Kentucky, for example; I'm fairly certain that person wouldn't appear on any kind of database in Kentucky listing them as mentally ill, even if they were severely so.

That's kind of a big problem. In this shooter's case, it appears that he had a serious history of mental illness, yet he had little trouble getting his hands on a gun, and further, transporting it across several states. I can't even begin to get into what's wrong with all of that.

I'm 100% in favor of people's right to own a gun, but some people absolutely shouldn't be allowed to, and they need to tighten that sh*t up a bit. Too many cases like this lately, where the shooter realistically shouldn't have had such an easy go of things.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by PApagreg

I dont think its irrelevant to talk about whether or not we should give people who have serioud mental illness guns. Apparently we have the foresight not to give felons guns but apparently by your logic we should give guns to people with a history of mental illness no if, ands or buts. Also I dont think its so much as confusing as it is dumb

Comes back to a very, very slippery slope. What do we define "mental illness" as and exactly to whom do we defer judgment as to the boundaries of what said "mental illness" actually is? I mean in terms of who gets to have a gun. Where do we come down on stuff like PTSD? Like, from war? Meaning, our veterans coming home who blew away bad guys to protect our country. They don't get to have guns and exert their basic constitutional right? Utterly absurd.

Originally Posted by Leo656

For example, people convicted of even non-violent felonies can't legally buy or own a gun. Extreme, perhaps, but it makes sense.

That's already the case. Though you get ONE non-violent felony you can remove from your record to restore your right to bear arms, as it stands (though even that costs a lot of money). But then that's it, forever. And that sort of makes sense.

[Leo656]

I'm aware that's already the case. My father was arrested for a non-violent felony back in 1990; they confiscated all his guns and he wasn't allowed to even own a starter pistol ever again. That's how I found out about that being the rule.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Leo656

I'm aware that's already the case. My father was arrested for a non-violent felony back in 1990; they confiscated all his guns and he wasn't allowed to even own a starter pistol ever again. That's how I found out about that being the rule.

Well, he's only about $2,000-$2,500 from restoring his right to bear arms. Assuming all terms of his previous non-violent conviction are/were met. You only get one of those your whole life, though.

[Leo656]

If my idiot sister ever sees fit to give me back the urn he's been resting in for the last 8 years, I'll be sure and give him the message.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by Leo656

If my idiot sister ever sees fit to give me back the urn he's been resting in for the last 8 years, I'll be sure and give him the message.

Aw sh**, I'm sorry, man. My dad is gone, too.

[Leo656]

No need, brother, it's all good. I think I mentioned it once? Probably not common knowledge.

He said he shot better with a bow, anyway.

[The Deadman]

Originally Posted by PApagreg

I dont think its irrelevant to talk about whether or not we should give people who have serioud mental illness guns. Apparently we have the foresight not to give felons guns but apparently by your logic we should give guns to people with a history of mental illness no if, ands or buts. Also I dont think its so much as confusing as it is dumb

Even if he was turned down while going the legal route, if he wanted a gun THAT badly, he was gonna get it by other means. So I doubt it really matters how he got it.

[PApagreg]

Originally Posted by The Deadman

Even if he was turned down while going the legal route, if he wanted a gun THAT badly, he was gonna get it by other means. So I doubt it really matters how he got it.

Like I said numerous of times, other developed countries with strict gun laws don't really have that problem.

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Comes back to a very, very slippery slope. What do we define "mental illness" as and exactly to whom do we defer judgment as mental illness

Thats all the more reasons to actually talk about it, I don't think a person who was switched between multiple mental faculties and taking anti psychosis should legally acquire a gun.

Originally Posted by Andrew NDB

Where do we come down on stuff like PTSD? Like, from war? Meaning, our veterans coming home who blew away bad guys to protect our country. They don't get to have guns and exert their basic constitutional right? Utterly absurd.

How is it "utterly absurd", if they are severely mentally unhealthy and are prone to violent outburst then I think they should't acquire a gun.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by PApagreg

Like I said numerous of times, other developed countries with strict gun laws don't really have that problem.

Trust me. I really, really don't care about other countries' gun laws.

How is it "utterly absurd", if they are severely mentally unhealthy and are prone to violent outburst then I think they should't acquire a gun.

Because that is just the ultimate slap in the face to our veterans. They go and fight in the front lines of the wars we don't... and then come home and as a reward for protecting our freedom they get their basic constitutional right revoked? Because we're kind of scared of them now? That's insane.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Known a couple of vets with PTSD. One was in Vietnam, and he got panicky anytime a car backfired or something made a loud "bang"; and the other- is my former boss's brother. He occasionally still has nightmares about guys he killed in Iraq. Not really sure I want a gun in the hands of either one if they happen to have an episode. And these are the otherwise "normal" ones.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by MsMarvelDuckie

Known a couple of vets with PTSD. One was in Vietnam, and he got panicky anytime a car backfired or something made a loud "bang"; and the other- is my former boss's brother. He occasionally still has nightmares about guys he killed in Iraq. Not really sure I want a gun in the hands of either one if they happen to have an episode.

They've earned that right far more than you (or I, for that matter) ever have.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Maybe so, but that still doesn't mean I'd feel comfortable with a gun in the hands of a guy who ducks for cover and has flashbacks of Nam any time a jet overhead makes a sonic boom. Legal right or not, nobody wants to be responsible for letting someone with KNOWN mental problems potentially shoot up a bunch of nuns or schoolkids. Worst case scenario, I know, but do we really want to take the risk?

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by MsMarvelDuckie

Maybe so, but that still doesn't mean I'd feel comfortable with a gun in the hands of a guy who ducks for cover and has flashbacks of Nam any time a jet overhead makes a sonic boom. Legal right or not, nobody wants to be responsible for letting someone with KNOWN mental problems potentially shoot up a bunch of nuns or schoolkids. Worst case scenario, I know, but do we really want to take the risk?

Absolutely.

And for all you know you've been surrounded by "scary" war veterans with PTSD your whole life, in every neighborhood you've ever lived in. I'd be proud to live next to them (which makes sense, since I'm married to a war veteran with PTSD). Hell, I'd probably feel even safer.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

That's a rather odd way to look at it, but okay. I just don't feel nearly as confident in the continued good will of people who have proven they have the ability to shoot at another human being, and who have been diagnosed with a mental disorder, AND own a gun. That's a bit like giving a bottle of whiskey as a housewarming gift to a recovering alcoholic. Not exactly a great idea.

[Andrew NDB]

Originally Posted by MsMarvelDuckie

That's a rather odd way to look at it, but okay. I just don't feel nearly as confident in the continued good will of people who have proven they have the ability to shoot at another human being, and who have been diagnosed with a mental disorder, AND own a gun. That's a bit like giving a bottle of whiskey as a housewarming gift to a recovering alcoholic. Not exactly a great idea.

Gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. But I appreciate your civil counter arguments.

[MsMarvelDuckie]

Same. I do respect your side, but I have simply been around too many people who do NOT need to ever be around or own guns, and what is so scary about it is the number of them who do. My stepdud is one of them. He is on antidepressant and antipsychotic medications, so by all logic should never be within 100 feet of any gun, yet he owns several and even has a cc license. Even though my mom had a retraining order against him being within 100 feet of me when I was 9. But he is somehow still allowed to carry.... Can't rightly understand how his "right" trumps all that. Or anyone else's right to own trumps any similar situations, of which we have FAR too many in this country.