OK, so my last idea was not well received

[dumbcat]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027223950#post73

Which I greatly appreciate. I actually expected more agreement, so I am somewhat relieved that the group wouldn't tolerate such an idea.

But, back to the original premise. Many of these mass shooters have had some indications of mental illness in the past, but they never rose to the level where they were adjudicated "dangerous" and denied the purchase of a gun, until they did. President Obama, and others, have said that we need to have a way to prevent dangerous individuals from legally buying guns. The purpose of the Background Check we all support is to have a database of persons considered too dangerous to buy a gun. I don't think many of us have a problem with that. Felons, persons under restraining orders, persons previously adjudicated as mentally ill and a danger to self and others, etc., are all obvious subjects to be in the "no guns" database.

So how do we identify those individuals that have some glimmering of a mental illness (or maybe a psychiatric problem, I'm not sure if I am using the proper terms) that "might" or "could" or "may possibly" become a danger to others at some time in the future? How do we get such persons on the "no guns" list without violating the rights of everyone else?

I know there are many here that will just stick to the "eliminate guns and bullets" meme, but that is just not realistic for several reasons which have all been beaten to death, so please refrain from offering up that solution in response to this post. Please try to answer the question: How do we identify and get "potentially dangerous future mass shooters" put in a Federal database so they can be denied purchase of firearms without violating the rights of everyone else?

I will be away for awhile, but eagerly await some thoughtful responses.

[Duckhunter935]

1. Good question

Wish I had an answer

[ChisolmTrailDem]

2. The British still use guns in hunting and sport. How do they keep gun violence among humans...

...in check? Maybe we can adopt their model?

[dumbcat]

23. That doesn't address the question asked

but still maybe worth looking into.

[Warpy]

54. Well, for one thing, they don't use hand guns

and they don't use semi automatics with huge magazines. When they hunt, they give the game a break or two.

I would be delighted with this model, allowing people in the boonies protection against bears and cougars while making mass murder by gun a hell of a lot harder.

[Aerows]

81. Canadians have hunting rifles

as well. But they aren't experiencing shootings every day.

I have absolutely no problem with hunting rifles or shotguns.

[hunter]

3. Gun love is a sickness that's difficult to treat.

I think it has something to do with all that lead dust gun lovers inhale.

If a person wants to own a handgun that's really all the evidence we need that they are not qualified to have one.

Okay, so were stuck on the Second Amendment.

Even so, family members can remove guns from the gun lovers homes, and communities can ostracize gun lovers.

[dumbcat]

24. You didn't address the question asked

[hunter]

51. I think wanting to own a gun for anything other than utilitarian reasons...

... is prima facie evidence that a person is unqualified to own a gun.

Most cops are not qualified to carry a gun.

Once upon a time drunk driving wasn't considered to a big deal. Now it is.

I think U.S. gun culture deserves a similar fate.

It's disgusting.

[dumbcat]

53. Then, your answer to the question is

that anyone who wants to own a gun for reasons other than you approve is a potential mass murderer and should be put on the list of persons prohibited from buying one. Got it.

[enlightenment]

4. We don't.

Every human being has the potential of developing a psychiatric illness.

"Might" and "Could" are profiling. How do you suggest we identify such individuals? The way they dress? Their politics? Their religion or spiritual beliefs - or lack thereof? The way they wear their hair? The things they say? The books they read, the programs they watch on television? Their adoption of technology? Are Apple aficionados more or less mentally competent than PC users? Coffee or tea? Omnivore or vegetarian?

I could argue that your idea, in and of itself, is suspect - if I wanted to do that, which I don't - because it points toward a belief that there are "signs" that a mentally competent person is going to develop a psychiatric disorder and that really is a bit of magical thinking on your part.

What you are proposing is not a realistic solution.

[dumbcat]

25. So if I read your reply correctly

There is no way to identify such people in advance? There is no way to identify dangerous people before the fact and prohibit their legal access to guns, as the President says we must do?

The consensus seems to be we do not like profiling.

What you are proposing is not a realistic solution.

I didn't propose a solution in this thread. I asked a specific question about possible solutions to the question. So far I haven't seen any.

[enlightenment]

75. Yes, you're reading correctly.

There is no viable way to identify people who may develop a psychological illness in advance. We could look at genetics, upbringing, etc - we could even start demanding DNA - but that would only identify possibilities, not actualities.

A woman with the "breast cancer gene" has a significantly greater chance of developing breast cancer than a woman who does not have that gene - but it doesn't mean she WILL develop breast cancer. Should ALL women who have the gene have preventative mastectomies? What if insurance companies started demanding that these women have mastectomies, based on that increased risk?

There just isn't any way to accomplish pre-guess who might develop a mental illness - and even if we could, that road presumes that mental illness is behind every trigger happy arse with a gun.

[sudenlyseymour]

5. Yes, that idea was properly not well received. However...

As a person who is newer to DU than you I am a bit disapointed that so many people chose to make personal attacks on you rather than logical ones on you idea. I think you handled responses to those very nicely. It makes me hesitant to post here though.

I have to agree with PSPS (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027223950#post6) that "at least you're trying to find a solution." Of course, I also agree with the majority of people in that thread that your idea is not that great. Probably not constitutional and very much prone to the whims of cliques of kids in school to be so very mean and downright evil to their fellow students. Fortunately, most of us grow out of that phase. The rest join the GOP. Many of whom then run for Congress or President.

I have a very difficult time seeing how we're going to do anything to combat this issue here in the US. Given the lack of courage among our elected officials and the rulings of the courts changing things seems quite insurmountable right now. Especially when you have a major news person, Brian Williams (aka, liar) saying there is nothing that can be done and the major candidates for President in the GOP are making similar sorts of statements.

These events have been turned into something no worse than a major traffic pile-up on some freeway that takes the lives of the same relative numbers of people in one incident. "Tragic, but what can you do?" Well, one is an accident. The other is not.

[dumbcat]

26. Thank you for your thoughtful reply, but

do you have an answer to the specific question posed in this thread? So far I am seeing lots of replies, but no one addresses the question I asked.

So how do we identify those individuals that have some glimmering of a mental illness (or maybe a psychiatric problem, I'm not sure if I am using the proper terms) that "might" or "could" or "may possibly" become a danger to others at some time in the future? How do we get such persons on the "no guns" list without violating the rights of everyone else?

[sudenlyseymour]

84. I am as useless as so many others who have replied.

No, I do not have an answer to this issue.

But, given your challenge am now trying to think of options and answers.

So, you have done some good in my case. Hopefully also in the case of other people.

[cwydro]

6. We could look twice at those who feel the need to pose on social media with guns.

I notice all these creeps have that in common.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. No they don't. Just the ones you happen to remember who happened to do that.

[cwydro]

9. Every one of the most recent had pictures of themselves with guns.

But then, so does Tom Hanks imbecile son Chet.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. Cedric G. Prather

Killed 6 and himself, no evidence of picture with gun.

Atase Giffa Ft. Hood shooter killed 4 no posing with gun.

I could go on. You might consider checking out http://shootingtracker.com/wiki/Mass_Shootings_in_2015 where you might find that all these pigeon hole theories are ridiculous horseshit.

[cwydro]

12. I love people who cannot post without using profanity.

Does it cause you anger when others disagree with you?

Or maybe your teeth hurt? Shoes too tight?

[Warren Stupidity]

13. 'horseshit'? seriously? that is what you are responding to?

Your claim was that all mass shooters pose with guns. Your claim is easily falsified. You know what they actually all have in common?

Guns. Unrestricted access to guns.

[dumbcat]

43. It's a sign of class

usually.

[cwydro]

79. I agree with you there.

It's also a sign of a lack of vocabulary, as my mother so often told me.

[Duckhunter935]

37. And hundreds of thousands did not

[uppityperson]

21. That is backwards logic, or would it be illogical?

Mass shooters pose with guns. This does not mean those that pose with guns are mass murderers.

[dumbcat]

27. After you look twice, then what do you do?

[Warren Stupidity]

7. Oh fuck that. Every other country that had a mass shooting problem did the obvious:

they limited the types of guns people could own and strictly regulated how they could own and operate them. And the mass shootings stopped. Because, oddly enough, there is a 100% correlation between mass shootings and people with guns.

GUNS ARE THE PROBLEM.

[LWolf]

14. What kinds of limits and regulations?

Maybe that's what we should be looking at.

That, AND looking at creating a healthier society.

[-none]

16. ^^^This Post^^^

There is lots of things that can be done without violating the 2nd Amendment. Guns and ammunition cross state lines, so interstate commerce laws should apply for dangerous items.
Another keep a national data base record of the legal owner of all firearms. All sales and transfers need to be properly recorded and tracked.
When a gun is used in a crime, the legal owner of record is held responsible. You know like when a robbery goes sideways and someone is killed, all responsible for the robbery are charged with the murder. The effect of this will be to make felons of those supplying the criminals with weapons, relieving them of their arsenals.
It then should not take more that a few mouths to cull and incarcerate the worst of the so-called good guys from the herd. You know those the think the 2nd Amendment is absolute and most firearm laws are unconstitutional and anything they want to do is legal. By eliminating the worst of the offenders, this will allow some common sense to appear and then we can start cleaning up the rest of the problem and join the rest of the civilized countries.

[Crunchy Frog]

49. That's far too sensible to ever work in this country.

[-none]

67. I know, but I can dream can't I?

Maybe, just maybe someone reading through this thread might get an idea or two and get the ball rolling for something with some realistic firearms control that has some teeth in it.
War has more laws and rules than this country does on gun control.

[-none]

76. Cars are, by law, licensed and insured to run on the street. Their purpose is transportation.

Gun are manufactured for the purpose of killing. They are very efficient at doing what they are designed to do.
The firearms in this country are mostly unregulated and unregistered and no insurance is involved to cover the damage they might cause.
It is often hard to trace the last legal owner of a weapon before the last legal good guy sold it to a criminal. Law enforcement usually gives up trying to find the real owner, unless it is really important for whatever reason. They just assume it's the criminals gun.
There is no real connection between cars and guns, except in the minds of those that dismiss the killing of innocents because they believe their own guns are more important than the lives of others.
Oh, and swimming pools don't count either.

[dumbcat]

28. Classy. And non-responsive

I politely asked not to bring up other issues and please respond only to the question asked. But a long time DUer could not respect such a request and responds with vulgarity and pressing his own thought on the issue with no tolerance for another view. Yep, classy all right.

[Duckhunter935]

40. Sorry to say that happens a lot

[Travis_0004]

59. Mexico has strict gun laws

I would bet there are very few shootings in mexico. . . .

[Warren Stupidity]

60. Mexico. Seriously?

Over those five decades, the United States had 90 public mass shootings, defined as shootings that killed four or more victims. Of the 170 other countries examined in the study, only four even made it to double-digits: The Philippines had 18 public mass shootings, followed by Russia with 15, Yemen with 11, and France with 10.
--http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/08/united-states-world-mass-shooters
from numerous articles referencing Adam Lankford's study on worldwide mass shootings.

Notice which country is not in the top 5?

[Travis_0004]

62. Overall homicides are higher in mexico

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/22/gun-homicides-ownership-world-list

They have more homicides despite a population 1/3 the size of the US. Their rate of homicides per 100,000 people is about 3 times the rate in the US.

[Warren Stupidity]

68. Well go ahead and talk about anything other

than mass shootings. Perhaps we should talk about swimming pool fatalities.

[NutmegYankee]

10. You require a permit to purchase a gun.

Part of the permit process is a quick interview and the collection of 3 references. If the interview or references show that there is reason to question if someone isn't a suitable person, the permit can be denied. After that, the person can appeal to the board of permit examiners, providing for a system of due process. The board will evaluate the evidence and determine if a permit will be granted or not. If that person is still unhappy, a lawsuit could be filed, though in practice that doesn't happen.

This is actually Connecticut's procedure. I and hundreds of thousands of other gun owners have gone through it getting permits.

[Kang Colby]

17. I like the Vermont and Maine procedures better...

No permit to purchase or carry, and a lower murder rate than CT.

Also, purchase nor carry permits in CT require third party references. If local authorities request references they are out of line and are not following the law. Your anecdote just illustrates why permitting processes just lead to more abuses. http://ctcarry.com/FAQ/Index/Pistol%20Permit%20Applications

[NutmegYankee]

19. In practice all town Police Chiefs or First Selectman have requested references.

As for the lower murder rate versus Vermont/Maine, population density and wealth of cities explains the difference.

[Crunchy Frog]

55. They both have vastly lower population densities than CT.

That's probably what accounts for the lower murder rates.

[dumbcat]

29. That's the closest I've seen yet to an answer

Last edited Sat Oct 3, 2015, 04:06 PM - Edit history (1)

to the question. Thank you for that.

What would be " reason to question if someone isn't a suitable person" in your view? Just a statement? Facebook posts? Written communications? Hearsay?

Who constitutes "the board" and what are their qualifications? What if the board happens to be all of one ethnic group, or political party, and believes minority (or majority) citizens are not qualified? Lots of lawsuits?

[NutmegYankee]

77. I can try to explain Connecticut's laws

Unsuitable is undefined in law, and is left to interpretation. However, a denial must have just and proper cause and cannot be arbitrary or capricious. If an individual seemed filled with rage or had threatening statements/posts, I could see that as a valid reason to deny. The Board of pistol permit examiners has been very skeptical in the past of denials. Cases of denials based on small town politics or political disagreements have been overturned each time.

As for the board:
The Board is comprised of nine members appointed by the Governor to serve during his term and until their successors are appointed and qualify. The members are appointed from nominees of the:
Commissioner the Dept. of Emergency Services and Public Protection,
Connecticut Police Chiefs Association,
the Commissioner of the Dept. of Energy and Environmental Protection,
The Connecticut State Rifles and Revolvers Association, Inc.,
Ye Connecticut Gun Guild, Inc.,
the Commissioner of the Dept. of Mental Health and Addiction Services,
and an appointee of the Chief Court Administrator.
Two members of the public are appointed with at least one member of the Board shall be a lawyer licensed to practice in Connecticut, who shall act as Chairman of the Board during the hearing of appeals.

The makeup is a spread to prevent the problems you cited. As noted earlier, it has been very skeptical of denials and has overturned a significant number of denials.

[Travis_0004]

80. probably makes it easy for a sherrif to deny a gun permit to Blacks or any other person

Ever wonder why Donald trump has a pistol permit and a lot of other people have trouble getting one.

He is rich and white. Its an easy process for him.

[NutmegYankee]

82. Considering that Connecticut doesn't have sheriffs, that won't happen.

No county government for that matter either.

There is a board for appeals that prevents abuse if a first selectman or police dept denies a permit without just and proper cause. In practice it has been very effective at reversing wrongful decisions.

[PowerToThePeople]

15. Ban all guns! n/t

[dumbcat]

30. Non responsive to my simple request

But, I know, you can't help yourself.

[kelly1mm]

61. You have yet to answer what should be done to gun owners like Vice President Joe Biden,

whom you declared a domestic terrorist. So, I have to yet again ask, since all gun owners in your view are 'domestic terrorists and should be treated thusly', what do you propose be done to my Vice President?

[PowerToThePeople]

70. Ideally, turn over all his guns.

If non-responsive to this, then jail time.

(Obviously laws need to be passed for this to occur.)

[kelly1mm]

72. Ok, I suppose that if passing laws (or in this case amending the constitution) is what you propose

we do to 'domestic terrorists' that all gun owners like my Vice President Biden are (in your view) then I am not opposed to that. If you think you can get the Constitution amended and ratified (or a Con. Convention ratified) that repeals the 2nd amendment I suggest you get started ASAP. If not the 'terrorists' like my Vice President win, right?

[PowerToThePeople]

73. They are winning currently

The population is being murdered and terrorized.

[kelly1mm]

74. Man, I sure hope Vice President Biden, who you deem a domestic terrorist, is not our nominee

in November of 2016 or you may have a problem voting for him. Heck, even Bernie or Hillary don't advocate gun confiscation and so at best are 'domestic terrorist' enablers I guess - you are going to have such a hard time finding a Democrat to support!

[cherokeeprogressive]

71. What's your answer to the problem of guns coming across the borders if they're banned?

Drugs are banned. Tons of them come across the borders every single day.

If guns were banned, the trade in illicit drugs would diminish, because trafficking in illegal guns would be a much more lucrative pastime.

We have what can only be termed as porous borders.

Your solution? Ban bringing guns across the borders? That works pretty well with drugs, doesn't it?

I really don't expect you to answer this question BTW... I've asked banners numerous times. They seem not to see the question.

[treestar]

18. I think we just have to cut down on the number of guns

and make them very hard to get and expensive to keep. Then those who claim they are afraid of crime can have them to protect themselves from the hoards of criminals they are seeing. Though there are more mass shootings than stories of people who used them successfully to protect themselves, and more accidents. Maybe an assessment of the mental health of people who feel that strongly they are likely to be attacked in some way would be desirable.

Background checks don't help a lot. The latest shooter had no record. Like terrorists, this is the first thing they do wrong. No way predict who it is going to be. People can have mental health problems that are pretty serious who don't turn out to be the ones who do this.

[dumbcat]

31. Non responsive to the question asked

Why is it so many people cannot respect a simple, polite request to address a question asked without bringing in their own views on other issues? If you don't have an answer to the question asked, just sit back and observe, or start another thread.

[HereSince1628]

20. this replies deals with "Many of -THESE- had -SOME- indication of -MENTAL ILLNESS-

Well, just what THESE are you talking about? There have been just shy of 300 mass shooting in 2015, ~45 of them are shootings on school campuses Pre-school to University. Does a mass shooting in grade school reflect the same motivations and issues as a shooting in a university? Probably only at a superficial level of analysis. Are you aware that 70% of "these nearly 300 mass shooters" for 2015 are unknown? How do you make meaningful matrix-like profiles to strip people of their rights when 70% of 'these mass shooters' are flying under the matrix?

We ought to be careful about generalities/stereotypes that aren't.

SOME indication...indication of WHAT to Whom? Every year in the US ~25% of Americans have -SOME INDICATION- of having a mental disorder. Just looking at that we ought to expect that by the time someone reaches the age of 10 there is a better than 8-% chance they have or had something that shares an indicator a mental disorder. Mental illness isn't like a staphylococcus infection, there are no tests...only indications...symptoms usually considered as suites of symptoms so that a diagnosis is based on a group of 'indicators' and their relative importance to the distress or dysfunction of the afflicted person. What seems like an 'indication' to a person who is an uneducated person with prejudices and fears about deviance or opposing political positions may not be an 'indication' of anything. Or the thing considered an indicator might really be an 'indicator' if it was severe/significan enough and present among other criteria and indicators, but the uneducated prejudiced person may not have the capacity to make even a half decent evaluation of the significance of the 'indicator. With 67 million or so people having some mental illness each year, and with depression being by far the most common, it would be most remarkable if -every- murderer above the age of 10 DIDN'T at some time express an 'indicator'. The presence of an indicator is a bullshit measure for the matrix you are trying to create. It's about as useful as saying every mass shooting was done by a human being.

We ought to be careful about insights and understanding we don't have.

There is no single category of mental disorder. There are MANY disorders. They fill up diagnostic manuals hundreds of pages long.
Generally speaking they get diagnosed because they cause they are significant enough to cause dysfunction and distress that in turn results in seeking of help. But the great majority don't make a person dangerous. In my scores of decades of life, I've never heard a significant risk of violent behavior associated with psychologically based ED, or insomnia, or agoraphobia, or fetishtic transvestism. What I have heard is that FOR PERSONS WITH SERIOUS MENTAL DISORDERS social violence is only elevated by a couple of percent over baseline for the general population of undiagnosed persons (I'm forced to say undiagnosed, because of the previous paragraph... most people have experienced mental disorders but dismissed/denied them and never seek assistance). The baseline for violence in society is about 5% per year, research has shown the risk for persons with -serious- mental disorders is just shy of 7%. Now when you poke around the internet about rates of violence among the mentally ill, be careful you aren't looking at rates of violence within correction institutions where rates of violence are very high for both mentally ill and mentally well, because violence is common in threat filled environments.

Creating a matrix so that there can be prior restraint is a dream of Science Fiction. And it's mostly built on social acceptance of bigotry against the mentally ill.

Believing that persons with mental disorders are the major cause of the gun violence problem is ridiculous on it's face, even if some gun violence almost surely results from psychological dysfunction. It's a hand overplayed. And the overplay is mostly a way to hack-up a fast rationale that meets with our existing bigoted attitudes about the mentally ill. It works because even our liberal icons, say like "sexy liberal" Stephanie Miller, propagate the use of bigotry and stigma against persons with mental disorders. It's that widespread stigma that leads to consequences of discrimination against the mentally disordered that include national unemployment rates around 80%, many times the rate of occurrence of Axis 5 scores for Global function that should result in occupational impairments.

IMO focusing on mental illness is pretty much an expression of fear, the same sort of fear that people encounter when they read stories of gun violence. And people's reactions are basically the same...they want protection, that drives many of the people to buy guns for self-protection and it drives most people to express their ignorance and fear of mental disorders as prejudice and discrimination.

In 2015



















An indication that was noted by a mental health/social worker is probably differ

[dumbcat]

34. So, did all that long reply boil down to

there is no way to identify dangerous persons before they do something dangerous, and there is no way to put anyone on a "no firearms" list until they actually do something dangerous or are adjudicated as such? We can't come up with the list the President says we must have?

"How do we identify and get "potentially dangerous future mass shooters" put in a Federal database so they can be denied purchase of firearms without violating the rights of everyone else? "

[HereSince1628]

38. No it boiled down to

We are ignorant about what we talk about. More than 70% of mass shootings are done by unknown. Leaps to stereotypes for guidance on legislation and law enforcement policy are mostly built on existing prejudice.

We tend to conflate many problems into single ones. We do this because we suppose it reduced things to a manageable single problem, but we tend to be ignorant and careless about how that muddies and co-mingles rather than clarifies extracts specific actionable contexts, which is to say we prefer general unworkable solutions that provide broad answer to specific responses with very narrow value. When I say 'we' I mean the us that is usually uneducated with any aspect of the problem needing to be fixed, but has a strong opinion based on existing our existing prejudice.

And the "Must do something!" crowd in government are likely to go with responses built on existing prejudice...because legislators are just as likely as We the common citizens to completely ignore evidence in order to bask in a "we did something good' glow of having acted on widely shared, but broadly un-useful, if not flat wrong headed, values.

[dumbcat]

41. OK. Do you have an answer to the question posed in the OP?

Is it possible, or not? If it is, how? If not, then that is also an answer. It just makes me wonder about what all the people who say we must do so (like the President) think how they are going to do so.

[HereSince1628]

47. I think focus on mental illness is mostly wrongheaded and hugely reliant on bigotry

rather than rhetoric remotely close to objective empirically based understanding of cause and effect

Solutions have to be found that deal with both..The parsed interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that guarantees the presence of guns in our culture... and ...the legitimate protections of the 14th amendment that preclude us from prior restraints that are over broad and violate rights to equal protection of innocent people in an attempt to get at the 1 in several 100,000s loosely associated with that class who should be restrained from gun possession.

The current solution is to have courts, or appointees of the court, make individual decisions about the risk of dangerousness to self and others, which are the basis for federal limits on gun ownership. But there are also variations about what constitutes a sufficiently dangerous mental illness to justify denial of gun possession. Some states are very specific some are not (some of the specifics are very poorly justified, imo, but if you are interested you could look at the Smart Gun Laws website).

We ought to be paying researchers to at least look at how these things work in the natural political experiments that are the states and territories. But currently we can't because federal spending on the background needed to develop smart laws is banned.

[dumbcat]

52. Well, thanks anyway

I think you are saying no, it's not possible to identify such persons as posed in the OP, but you can't seem to come right out and say it. Good enough for me.

[HereSince1628]

57. I'm not into the Manicheasim of yes and no of conservatives and

people who really like to have things kept simple to meet the limits of their understanding.

I think you can identify some of these people, but with available knowledge and understanding there will be many scores of thousands of false positives for every person legitimately stopped from making a gun purchase.

The US constitution places limits, although poorly defined and open to be interpreted re the problem under consideration, on how overbroad you can be with the application of law to obtain a desired end...be the end truly worthy or more than questionable.

[dumbcat]

64. I think we are in violent agreement

[uppityperson]

45. Yup. Conflating many problems into simple ones doesn't work.

The polarization of people is getting worse. People feel such a lack of control in so many areas, emotional and awful happenings gives us something to focus on, hoping that we can figure out how to stop it in a simple and easy way.

My theories are that humans evolved technologically so much faster than socially and emotionally. There are many more decent people than nasty ones. There many problems leading to mass shootings and no simple fast solutions.

Why do people commit atrocities on other people? There are some people who are truly evil, some feeling hopeless and wanting to see acknowledged if even in a bad way, some are mentally ill in a very destructive to others way, some feel their lives are out of control and find control in a bad way. Sometimes it is a group, sometimes individuals. Some are lost, some enjoy it.

Why is a group getting killed at one time considered worse than many individuals being killed one at a time in the same manner in individual events? I am just thinking aloud here, getting off track and will stop now.

[HereSince1628]

50. E.O. Wilson says the dilemma of human existence stems from

Our paleolithic emotions and drives, our medieval institutions of governance and justice, and our modern technical capacity for mass destruction

[uppityperson]

22. Here is the link to your last idea, rather than a reply I gave

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027223950

There is only one solution to these young, crazy shooters...

[farmbo]

32. Simple... Require them to become...

... Part of a "well regulated militia". Just as the drafters of the Constitution intended.

If losers like this Oregon wacko had to serve in a militia (or the US Military), learn firearms safety, unit discipline, and be subject to deployment, they would either wash out and lose their right to keep and bear arms... Or get an honorable discharge (and maybe learn some self respect) They could then buy all the guns they want

[dumbcat]

36. You want to determine who is a potential danger to others

and put them on the list prohibiting legal purchase of firearms by requiring them to join a militia?

Ok, if that is your answer to the question posed in the OP. I think it strange, however.

[farmbo]

42. Yes... Read the the text of the 2nd Amendment

That is exactly what the Drafters contemplated. It took the Roberts court and a tortured SCOTUS decision to find that the right to gun ownership could not be restricted.

[dumbcat]

44. You are still non-responsive to the question

posed in the OP. And, I''l bet you don't know that you may be a member of a militia.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

[farmbo]

85. Respectfully,it is responsive. I'm linking gun purchases to a 'well regulated militia'

As for me being in a militia.... I am "eligible to enlist", but haven't. As such, I would not be eligible to buy certain firearms under my suggested scheme, unless/ until I mustered out with an honorable discharge.
It's basically the Swiss model, tweaked to conform with the Second Amendment.

[uppityperson]

33. I do not know how to ID potential mass murderers

Part of the problem stems from backwards logic. If someone commits mass murder, they are mentally ill. This does not mean mentally ill will commit mass murder.

I think gun safety should be taught in school as too many accidental deaths happen in children's and teens hands. Gun locks need to be used, children (and others) taught how to handle or not touch a gun. But this does not address your questions.

I do not know how to ID them without tramping on others who will never ever think of doing such a thing.

[dumbcat]

39. Thank you for the most direct, honest answer in this thread

I think it's OK to say we don't know how to identify potential mass murderers before they actually do something illegal. I don't know how to do it either. And thus I wonder why the President, and others, keep insisting that we must identify such people and prohibit them from obtaining firearms, and do it without restricting others citizen's individual second amendment rights that the President and the Party support.

I conclude this by saying from the responses I have received, no one has a way to do what the President says we must do. Somehow, we want to identify potentially dangerous people, and prohibit them from legally obtaining firearms, but we most vehemently will not accept any type of profiling in order to do so.

Thank you again. I wish there were more discussions like this.

[Crunchy Frog]

46. No, you can't simply identify anyone who might potentially commit an act of violence

at some point in the future. You might end up stigmatizing millions of people and depriving them of basic rights and freedoms, but you're not going to stop gun violence that way. And practically everyone has at least a "glimmering" of a psychiatric problem. Even you do, most likely.

I agree with you that we're not going to eliminate guns and bullets, or even meaningfully regulate them.

I think the real solution is for people like yourself to develop an understanding of the concept of "trade offs". People in this country, overall, seem to want to live in a society where there is unfettered access to a wide range of powerful firearms and ammo. People simply need to understand and accept that occasional incidents of large scale carnage are a natural corollary of that kind of society.

Some things that people consider desireable come with unpleasant or unfortunate side effects. You people who want these "rights" and "freedoms" need to learn to deal with the less pleasant things that go along with that "freedom", and stop whining about them.

I will say that, as a person with mental health issues, that I will fight you tooth and nail if you try to limit my rights and freedoms, or try to use me as a scapegoat for problems that are of your own making.

[dumbcat]

48. Thank you for your thoughtful and honest reply

A lot of truth in that.

But, wow:

I think the real solution is for people like yourself to develop an understanding of the concept of "trade offs". People in this country, overall, seem to want to live in a society where there is unfettered access to a wide range of powerful firearms and ammo. People simply need to understand and accept that occasional incidents of large scale carnage are a natural corollary of that kind of society.

That is very true, but a LOT of people here are not going to accept that.

I posted these last two threads to gauge the feelings of the folks here on a specific issue. It was somewhat enlightening. I agree with you that it is not possible to predict future mass murderers and get them on "the list" that so many seem to want. And I am not one of "those people" that wants to limit your rights. Quite the contrary. I am a lifelong shooter, gunsmith (gun tinkerer, actually) and own several dozen firearms including NFA items. I am not about limiting your rights and freedoms.

[uppityperson]

56. "I am not about limiting your rights and freedoms"? you wanted to give this power to teenagers on

your other thread. Let teens decide who is popular and limit rights and freedoms to those deemed unpopular.

[dumbcat]

63. That other post was a proposition

After the post title, which was purposely worded to garner attention, you will note that the rest of the post was proposed as a potential (absurd) solution. I never really meant to advocate it, but wanted to gauge reaction to the proposition. I actually expected a lot more support for it, and I was pleasantly surprised at the pretty much unanimous rejection. The group vehemently rejects profiling, even if it is to identify gun nuts and potential mass murderers. The group is very sensitive to, and protective of, mental illness (and I use that in a broad sense) even when the consequences of misdiagnosis are severe. The group seems to realize that it is pretty much impossible to identify potential future mass killers based on past indicators, but we really seem to have a hard time coming out and actually saying that.

I'll readily admit that what got me started on this track was hearing President Obama essentially saying that we must identify such future dangerous persons and prevent them from legally buying weapons (by getting that determination in the database used by the background checks), without somehow violating other citizen's rights that both he and the party support. I sat there and wondered for hours, "How can you do that?"

And no, I would never trust teenagers to do any such thing. When my son was a teenager I wanted to put him in a box with some air holes and not let him out until he was 25. Thankfully, at 35 he has turned into a pretty nice person and my best friend.

[uppityperson]

78. Thank you for acknowledging it was absurd. I wasn't sure, especially due to your replies saying

you were serious.

[Crunchy Frog]

66. Granted, I don't like living in a gun saturated society,

with little or no meaningful regulation, but I also recognize that I'm "outgunned" on this, so to speak.

I'm just sick and tired of the hypocrisy of the people who want to live with our current gun culture and then get all hysterical when they see that there are consequences that go along with it.

[Evergreen Emerald]

58. I posted a similar request yesterday. Here are the responses

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027222107

This issue can be addressed. We just need to get our heads together.

[dumbcat]

65. Your question was much, much broader than mine

You asked to to stop future mass shootings. Mine was restricted to the process of identifying future mass shooters to prevent them from legally buying firearms, which the President somehow seemed to advocate.

[smilingwen]

83. My answer is different

Just speculation on my part, but it seems that looking for the underlying problem could help. It seems like whenever we look into these people they were either influenced by all the hate rhetoric that goes around now, like the Charleston shooter, or by a sense of hopelessness and a feeling of personal failure. Better living conditions for the masses would help lessen the amount of people who can't take anymore and snap.

Background checks and closing the gun show loophole would help, but need to be done on the national level to work. That won't happen unless campaign finance rules change so legislators actually have to worry about the voters instead of NRA donors. Sure some harden criminals could still get guns, but these mass shooters seem to not be that type.

Life being so difficult for so many people I feel is the biggest underlying issue.

[Iggo]

86. This ain't much different than your other pre-crime thread, huh.

[dumbcat]

87. If you say so

huh.

[Iggo]

88. I'm glad you agree.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

89. Freeedumb isn't strictly the domain of the right.

Which is basically the prevailing logic applied to this issue. "I hate guns, but if their going to be legal that fucked-up kid better be able to get one too!... because FREEEDUMB!"