Another school shooting

[earendel]

OK, we've been beating this horse long enough. How about this for a suggestion, proposed by Representative Tim Murphy, R-PA.
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/guns-con ... 49362.html

After the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012, Murphy, who leads a subcommittee on government oversight and investigations, asked the Republican leadership if he could look into government programs that are supposed to address the most severe and violent kinds of mental illness. His investigation led him to write the Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act, known familiarly in the Capitol by its bill number, 2646.

Murphy’s sprawling bill would amend the existing federal privacy laws, so that in cases of serious mental illness (and only in those cases), a consulting doctor would have the ability to call the patient’s parent or caregiver and share information about medications and follow-up treatment. Not incidentally, that’s when a doctor might also learn something about guns in the home.

That same loosening of the privacy laws would apply to universities and other institutions, so that administrators could let parents know if a student had been treated for an acute bout of mental illness.

Under 2646, Medicaid would no longer deny reimbursement for hospitals with more than 16 psychiatric beds — a decades-old rule meant to shut down hospitals of the One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest variety. Nor would the program prohibit urgent-care doctors from immediately handing off a patient to a psychiatrist without having to wait a day, as it does now.

If you try to buy a gun tomorrow, the federal database for background checks will flag you as a threat only if you’ve been given involuntary treatment for mental illness — that is, if you’ve been forcibly brought to a hospital or committed against your will. Murphy wants to increase the number of therapists and available beds in rural communities, to make involuntary commitment a more practical option for judges.

The bill would modestly fund a series
of pilot projects for programs that have succeeded in the states, like a telepsychiatry hotline for primary care doctors, while steering money away from federal priorities like the one advising stressed kids to drink fruit smoothies. (Seriously. Read the General Accounting Office’s full report.) And 2646 would create a new assistant secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services to oversee all federal programs dedicated to mental health.

No one is suggesting that Murphy’s proposals, many of which I’ve elided here, would magically transform the culture or prevent more heartbreaking mass shootings. But it’s fair to say that it would give doctors, judges, families and schools more tools to work with when they come in contact with a severely disturbed kid who might be armed.

And it’s worth noting that 2646 could have a real impact on suicidal patients, too, who account for the vast majority of gun-related tragedies in America.

“The federal policies toward serious mental illness are abusive and neglectful and make it even worse for people who are minorities or low income, plain and simple,” Murphy told me when we sat down in his office earlier this week. He is brisk and businesslike, in the manner of a psychologist, although he looks a bit like Steve Carell.

Murphy is a loyal Republican, with the standard-issue bust of Ronald Reagan sitting on an end table. But he steadfastly refused to get into a dead-end conversation about the Second Amendment or gun ownership generally.

“I’m focused on what’s in their head, not in their hand,” he said. “I want to prevent the problems, and when they emerge, I want to ensure that we do the proper risk assessment, and that persons who have a tendency toward violence, if they are seriously mentally ill, should not be able to attain weapons. That’s what I’m focused on cleaning up. That’s what I can do.”

Only he can’t — or not without some support from his own party’s leadership, anyway. At a minimum, you’d think Murphy’s bill would spark a long overdue conversation about the balance between civil liberties, on one hand, and public safety from gun violence on the other.

That’s a debate we’ve been having when it comes to Islamic terrorism for years now. It’s a good bet that most parents worry more about some psychotic shooter in their kids’ school then they do about the Islamic State, and yet there’s virtually no discussion in the country about when we sacrifice medical confidentiality to get guns away from those who are clearly dangerous.

But while more than a dozen lawmakers have signed on to Murphy’s bill since last week (he has, at last count, 97 Republican co-sponsors and 40 Democrats), 2646 may well remain stuck in the purgatory of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has been focused on other worthy initiatives, like investing in cures for rare diseases.

When I asked Murphy why he thought his bill hadn’t come up for a vote, he shrugged and said he didn’t know.

What we do know is that Republicans are generally wary of anything that runs afoul of libertarians or gun-loving conspiracy theorists, or any bill that expands the reach of government. Just as the White House — which could be jumping on this bill as a consensus measure to address the shootings — doesn’t want to do anything that might be seen as blaming mental illness, rather than blaming the gun.

Or how about this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/18/opini ... -guns.html

For more than a year, we and fellow religious leaders across the nation have worked to persuade President Obama to use what we believe is the most powerful tool government has in this area: its purchasing power. The federal government is the nation’s top gun buyer. It purchases more than a quarter of the guns and ammunition sold legally in the United States. State and local law enforcement agencies also purchase a large share. Major gun manufacturers depend on these taxpayer-funded purchases. For the government to keep buying guns from these companies — purchases meant to ensure public safety — without making demands for change is to squander its leverage.

Some of the leading brands of handguns purchased by the government — Glock, Smith & Wesson, Sig Sauer, Beretta, Colt, Sturm, Ruger & Company — are also leading brands used in crimes. Among the brands of handguns recovered by the Chicago Police Department at crime scenes between January 2012 and October 2013, all six of these companies ranked in the top 11. When police officers carrying Glocks are recovering Glocks at crime scenes on a regular basis, shouldn’t this prompt questions about whether the police department could use its influence to reduce the number of guns that end up in the hands of criminals? When Smith & Wessons turn up frequently in the hands of criminals, shouldn’t questions be asked when Smith & Wesson seeks a contract with the federal government?

What could gun manufacturers do to protect the public?

They could distribute their guns exclusively through dealers that sell guns responsibly, and end their relationships with the small percentage of bad-apple dealers that sell a disproportionate number of the guns used in crimes. They could produce “smart guns” that can be fired only by authorized users, and that therefore are far less likely to be used in accidental or intentional shootings. These measures, over time, would prevent many thousands of deaths.

But companies will innovate in these areas only if their major customers ask them to.

The president can push companies to compete in the area of safer guns and more responsible distribution. Here’s how to start.

First, use federal purchasing power to begin a substantive conversation with gun manufacturers. The Pentagon is in the process of selecting the provider of handguns for the United States Army. It should require all bidders to provide detailed information about their gun safety technologies and distribution practices in the civilian market. No response, no contract.

The F.B.I. should do likewise. In his forthright statement on how Dylann Roof obtained the gun used to murder churchgoers in Charleston without having a completed background check, the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, explained that gun dealers have the discretion to execute a sale — or not — if a background check isn’t completed within three days. The next logical step, in our view, is for Mr. Comey to ask the F.B.I.’s firearms suppliers to stop doing business with dealers who won’t agree to use that discretion to protect the public.

Second, work with companies to develop new models of distribution, such as through dealers certified by the industry as reputable.

Third, rescue the federal government’s smart-gun research efforts from oblivion. Tens of millions of research dollars are needed to help get promising safety technologies to market.

Fourth, develop a set of metrics for measuring manufacturers’ performance. We might measure, for instance, the number of a manufacturer’s guns found at crime scenes, as a percentage of their overall sales.

Let’s give gun manufacturers an incentive to make more smart guns and to allow fewer guns into the hands of criminals.

[silverscreenselect]

What I see is the problem with the anti-gun crowd is the impact of the news on their emotional state. They are similar to the folks who see a plane crash and are terrified to fly somewhere, so they drive.

The problem isn't with my emotional state. The problem is there every day, and there's hundreds of individual tragedies that make the inside pages of the local section of the newspaper for every mass school shooting. Unless you're a relative of a child who got shot (or one that did the shooting), it just gets passed over. It's only when a highly publicized incident occurs that the public cares.

It's no coincidence that the driving force behind the Brady bill was the fact that the President of the United States got shot. Guns weren't any more or less of a problem the day before Hinckley shot Reagan (and Brady) as after. The only thing that changed was public awareness of the problem and a willingness to do something about it. Obama's statement about publicizing these shootings is correct. The public only seems to care when something spectacularly disastrous occurs.

It's also somewhat humorous that the people on this Bored who are the least inclined to actually listen to statistics are the ones most eager to criticize others' supposed failings in that regard.

[jarnon]

Here's a downside to gun ownership that may surprise even SSS:

Rise in lead exposure linked to firearms

[Bob78164]

It's also the college campus where someone decides to go on a shooting spree. How the hell am I supposed to protect myself and my family from those risks? --Bob

Campus carry.

Great, so some other armed vigilante can mistake me or my family for the actual shooter because I'm running with my gun out and take a potshot at me. Just like happened in Israel yesterday. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

It's also the college campus where someone decides to go on a shooting spree. How the hell am I supposed to protect myself and my family from those risks? --Bob

Campus carry.

Great, so some other armed vigilante can mistake me or my family for the actual shooter because I'm running with my gun out and take a potshot at me. Just like happened in Israel yesterday. --Bob

Yep, There's millions of armed vigilantes (ie idiots) lurking the streets and college campuses just waiting to take a potshot at you and your family. Let's take their guns away.

Why is the liberal answer to any issue to take away the rights and liberty of everyone, regardless of whether they have done anything wrong? I keep going back to my Junior High School days when two kids had a fight in the lunchroom one day, and for the rest of the year, there was no talking by anyone in the lunchroom. There were no more fights in the lunchroom that year. That solved it. Is that the way we want to run the country from now on? Sounds like fun to me.

[SportsFan68]

It's also the college campus where someone decides to go on a shooting spree. How the hell am I supposed to protect myself and my family from those risks? --Bob

Campus carry.

Great, so some other armed vigilante can mistake me or my family for the actual shooter because I'm running with my gun out and take a potshot at me. Just like happened in Israel yesterday. --Bob[/quote]

Yep, There's millions of armed vigilantes (ie idiots) lurking the streets and college campuses just waiting to take a potshot at you and your family. Let's take their guns away.

Why is the liberal answer to any issue to take away the rights and liberty of everyone, regardless of whether they have done anything wrong? I keep going back to my Junior High School days when two kids had a fight in the lunchroom one day, and for the rest of the year, there was no talking by anyone in the lunchroom. There were no more fights in the lunchroom that year. That solved it. Is that the way we want to run the country from now on? Sounds like fun to me.[/quote]

Flock, that is simply not true. My right to keep and bear arms is in no way threatened, even by the horrific mass murders which have occurred, one of them not so long ago here in Colorado. SteelersFan is happy to get his background checked every time he buys a firearm. I am delighted to borrow a shotgun for turkey hunting from one of his friends, a shotgun he could not own if he had not passed a background check. They do not believe that any of their rights or liberties have been taken away, and they do not believe that any of their rights and liberties will be taken away by any currently proposed legislation.

[Bob78164]

Great, so some other armed vigilante can mistake me or my family for the actual shooter because I'm running with my gun out and take a potshot at me. Just like happened in Israel yesterday. --Bob

Yep, There's millions of armed vigilantes (ie idiots) lurking the streets and college campuses just waiting to take a potshot at you and your family. Let's take their guns away.

Why is the liberal answer to any issue to take away the rights and liberty of everyone, regardless of whether they have done anything wrong? I keep going back to my Junior High School days when two kids had a fight in the lunchroom one day, and for the rest of the year, there was no talking by anyone in the lunchroom. There were no more fights in the lunchroom that year. That solved it. Is that the way we want to run the country from now on? Sounds like fun to me.

The "liberty" you're trying to protect is the right to fire a gun in public whenever you believe it to be justified by circumstances, because the only purpose of a gun is to fire bullets. I don't think the Second Amendment was ever intended to protect that "liberty," and as a policy matter I think it's a terrible idea that puts me and my family at increased risk that I have no way to mitigate. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

The "liberty" you're trying to protect is the right to fire a gun in public whenever you believe it to be justified by circumstances, because the only purpose of a gun is to fire bullets. I don't think the Second Amendment was ever intended to protect that "liberty," and as a policy matter I think it's a terrible idea that puts me and my family at increased risk that I have no way to mitigate. --Bob

No sir, you are wrong. Of course you believe I am 'for' people shooting guns in public. That is what you've been programmed to think. There are already laws against firing guns in public. You want to add some more? Let's get real specific, and then add more bureaucracies above and beyond the ones we have to enforce your minutia. That'll solve all our problems, right? In actuality, you know and I know you want the government to ban all citizens from having firearms. That is your end goal. Be honest.

Actually I am trying to protect the liberty of honest law abiding citizens who would never think of hurting you or your family to mitigate the dangers you fear in the way they think is prudent. But to you, those people don't exist. Anyone with a gun is a potential lethal danger to you, because they are all dumber than you are.

I am sure you are against the Second Amendment. If so, then make another amendment and get it passed to clarify what you don't like about it. Too hard? Well, let's just use Obama's phone and pen.

[silverscreenselect]

Actually I am trying to protect the liberty of honest law abiding citizens who would never think of hurting you or your family to mitigate the dangers you fear in the way they think is prudent. But to you, those people don't exist. Anyone with a gun is a potential lethal danger to you, because they are all dumber than you are.

Are these the people you're trying to protect?

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2014/05/27/6- ... les-rifle/

I guess that technically they didn't hurt me or my family, only their own family. I'm sure that makes them feel a lot better.

This family didn't hurt me or my family either: http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/4- ... 61311.html

There's plenty more of those, approximately two children a week being killed in accidental shootings, and that doesn't include the number of adults they kill. Add in injuries and the number goes up.

And yes, anyone with a gun is a potential lethal danger to me because I have no way of separating the smart ones from the dumb ones.

[mrkelley23]

One statistic of which I was not aware that honestly, kind of took my breath away: There are FAR more shootings that happen in churches than happen in schools. In 2012, for instance, there were more than 20 church shootings for every school shooting in the US. I guess I'm more susceptible to media bias than I thought, because I never would have made this connection.

Not taking sides in the debate which is currently raging in this thread, just pointing out yet another facet of the gun control argument which was totally unexpected by me.

[Bob78164]

The "liberty" you're trying to protect is the right to fire a gun in public whenever you believe it to be justified by circumstances, because the only purpose of a gun is to fire bullets. I don't think the Second Amendment was ever intended to protect that "liberty," and as a policy matter I think it's a terrible idea that puts me and my family at increased risk that I have no way to mitigate. --Bob

No sir, you are wrong. Of course you believe I am 'for' people shooting guns in public. That is what you've been programmed to think. There are already laws against firing guns in public. You want to add some more? Let's get real specific, and then add more bureaucracies above and beyond the ones we have to enforce your minutia. That'll solve all our problems, right? In actuality, you know and I know you want the government to ban all citizens from having firearms. That is your end goal. Be honest.

Actually I am trying to protect the liberty of honest law abiding citizens who would never think of hurting you or your family to mitigate the dangers you fear in the way they think is prudent. But to you, those people don't exist. Anyone with a gun is a potential lethal danger to you, because they are all dumber than you are.

Liberty to do what? What purpose does concealed carry have other than to enable gun owners to possess, and when they deem it necessary, fire their guns in public? --Bob

[BackInTex]

The "liberty" you're trying to protect is the right to fire a gun in public whenever you believe it to be justified by circumstances, because the only purpose of a gun is to fire bullets. I don't think the Second Amendment was ever intended to protect that "liberty," and as a policy matter I think it's a terrible idea that puts me and my family at increased risk that I have no way to mitigate. --Bob

No sir, you are wrong. Of course you believe I am 'for' people shooting guns in public. That is what you've been programmed to think. There are already laws against firing guns in public. You want to add some more? Let's get real specific, and then add more bureaucracies above and beyond the ones we have to enforce your minutia. That'll solve all our problems, right? In actuality, you know and I know you want the government to ban all citizens from having firearms. That is your end goal. Be honest.

Actually I am trying to protect the liberty of honest law abiding citizens who would never think of hurting you or your family to mitigate the dangers you fear in the way they think is prudent. But to you, those people don't exist. Anyone with a gun is a potential lethal danger to you, because they are all dumber than you are.

Liberty to do what? What purpose does concealed carry have other than to enable gun owners to possess, and when they deem it necessary, fire their guns in public? --Bob

In most cases, to continue to live and to keep the stuff they worked hard to obtain.

[Bob78164]

Liberty to do what? What purpose does concealed carry have other than to enable gun owners to possess, and when they deem it necessary, fire their guns in public? --Bob

In most cases, to continue to live and to keep the stuff they worked hard to obtain.

By firing their guns in public when they think circumstances warrant. --Bob

[BackInTex]

In most cases, to continue to live and to keep the stuff they worked hard to obtain.

By firing their guns in public when they think circumstances warrant. --Bob[/quote]

Yes. By firing their guns at attackers, robbers, rapists, rabid dogs, whatever the threat may be, in public or private. What about self defense do you not get?

[silverscreenselect]

In most cases, to continue to live and to keep the stuff they worked hard to obtain.

By firing their guns in public when they think circumstances warrant. --Bob

Yes. By firing their guns at attackers, robbers, rapists, rabid dogs, whatever the threat may be, in public or private. [/quote]

This guy, who happened to be a ten-year Army veteran, did a real good job of protecting himself against an attacker.

http://gazette.com/stepdad-who-shot-tee ... le/1511573

So did this 16-year-old:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.1297242

[BackInTex]

In most cases, to continue to live and to keep the stuff they worked hard to obtain.

By firing their guns in public when they think circumstances warrant. --Bob

Yes. By firing their guns at attackers, robbers, rapists, rabid dogs, whatever the threat may be, in public or private.

This guy, who happened to be a ten-year Army veteran, did a real good job of protecting himself against an attacker.

http://gazette.com/stepdad-who-shot-tee ... le/1511573

So did this 16-year-old:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.1297242[/quote]


You found two?! Really? That's nice.

[Estonut]

Is everyone too busy arguing to notice the quotes are screwed up, reversing the roles here? It's pretty funny to see what's attributed to who now.

[silverscreenselect]

You found two?! Really? That's nice.

Two in the ten seconds or so I devoted to research.

[ten96lt]

Here's 12 instances where it did help.

http://controversialtimes.com/issues/co ... with-guns/

[Bob78164]

Here's 12 instances where it did help.

http://controversialtimes.com/issues/co ... with-guns/

That's 12 times in 8 years, right? How many of the would-be killers acquired their guns legally?

In the meantime, how often have legally acquired guns been used to kill people inadvertently? Or in a moment of passion? How many tens of thousands of lives has it cost us to make these 12 good-cowboy stories possible? --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

Here's 12 instances where it did help.

http://controversialtimes.com/issues/co ... with-guns/

That's 12 times in 8 years, right? How many of the would-be killers acquired their guns legally?

In the meantime, how often have legally acquired guns been used to kill people inadvertently? Or in a moment of passion? How many tens of thousands of lives has it cost us to make these 12 good-cowboy stories possible? --Bob

I know you have your mindset and I know there is nothing that will change your mind, because it is an ideological opinion, not a logical one. Answer this: How many legally acquired automobiles have been used to kill people inadvertantly? Shall we make some more 'common sense' laws to prevent these unnecessary deaths? Shall we ban cars?

Guns exist, and you will never get your utopia where they don't exist. To make laws to try and get to your utopia will have the unintended (and sometimes I think it's intended for some of the most hard core leftists) consequence of leaving law abiding citizens at a much higher vulnerability to armed un-law abiding citizens.

[Bob Juch]

Here's 12 instances where it did help.

http://controversialtimes.com/issues/co ... with-guns/

That's 12 times in 8 years, right? How many of the would-be killers acquired their guns legally?

In the meantime, how often have legally acquired guns been used to kill people inadvertently? Or in a moment of passion? How many tens of thousands of lives has it cost us to make these 12 good-cowboy stories possible? --Bob

I know you have your mindset and I know there is nothing that will change your mind, because it is an ideological opinion, not a logical one. Answer this: How many legally acquired automobiles have been used to kill people inadvertantly? Shall we make some more 'common sense' laws to prevent these unnecessary deaths? Shall we ban cars?

Guns exist, and you will never get your utopia where they don't exist. To make laws to try and get to your utopia will have the unintended (and sometimes I think it's intended for some of the most hard core leftists) consequence of leaving law abiding citizens at a much higher vulnerability to armed un-law abiding citizens.

You compared cars to guns. There's a huge difference: Cars are not intended to kill people. They're always trying to make safer cars and there are many Federal regulations, such as for seat belts, that are saving lives.

[Bob78164]

Here's 12 instances where it did help.

http://controversialtimes.com/issues/co ... with-guns/

That's 12 times in 8 years, right? How many of the would-be killers acquired their guns legally?

In the meantime, how often have legally acquired guns been used to kill people inadvertently? Or in a moment of passion? How many tens of thousands of lives has it cost us to make these 12 good-cowboy stories possible? --Bob

I know you have your mindset and I know there is nothing that will change your mind, because it is an ideological opinion, not a logical one. Answer this: How many legally acquired automobiles have been used to kill people inadvertantly? Shall we make some more 'common sense' laws to prevent these unnecessary deaths? Shall we ban cars?

Guns exist, and you will never get your utopia where they don't exist. To make laws to try and get to your utopia will have the unintended (and sometimes I think it's intended for some of the most hard core leftists) consequence of leaving law abiding citizens at a much higher vulnerability to armed un-law abiding citizens.

This is a false (I'd say ridiculous) equivalence. Cars have an obvious and substantial utility that does not involve killing people.

I notice that you haven't answered my questions above. It's your usual tactic. When the evidence doesn't support you, change the subject. So what are the answers to my questions? --Bob

[ten96lt]

That's 12 times in 8 years, right? How many of the would-be killers acquired their guns legally?

In the meantime, how often have legally acquired guns been used to kill people inadvertently? Or in a moment of passion? How many tens of thousands of lives has it cost us to make these 12 good-cowboy stories possible? --Bob

Those are mass shooting prevention (I know you want to trivialize those events where they did good, but if they saved just one life.....) , if you'd like to go into your run of the mill self-defense uses, the number is much higher.
I know you have your mindset and I know there is nothing that will change your mind, because it is an ideological opinion, not a logical one. Answer this: How many legally acquired automobiles have been used to kill people inadvertantly? Shall we make some more 'common sense' laws to prevent these unnecessary deaths? Shall we ban cars?

Guns exist, and you will never get your utopia where they don't exist. To make laws to try and get to your utopia will have the unintended (and sometimes I think it's intended for some of the most hard core leftists) consequence of leaving law abiding citizens at a much higher vulnerability to armed un-law abiding citizens.

This is a false (I'd say ridiculous) equivalence. Cars have an obvious and substantial utility that does not involve killing people.

I notice that you haven't answered my questions above. It's your usual tactic. When the evidence doesn't support you, change the subject. So what are the answers to my questions? --Bob

That's a red herring about trying to compare the gun/car utility saying a car's utility is much higher. Utility is in the eye of the beholder. If I lived in Manhattan, the utility of a car is nearly 0 with the traffic and regulations and parking. If we go to somewhere rural, guns have a much higher utility as a means of method of controlling coyotes and self protection that would take a sheriff 15-20-30 minutes to arrive. Just because you hold a gun at 0 utility doesn't mean someone else doesn't have a much higher utility for it.

Yes, a gun's only job is to kill (legally you can't use it to wound), but so does abortion. Yet I don't see anyone on the left rushing to ban it. FTR, I'm not interested in banning it either, but the glaring hypocrisy in wanting to ban one practice that potentially kills (not everything dies from a gunshot), while screaming to keep another that kills is highly disturbing. If a woman has a right to choose how to treat her body, I have a right to defend my body. I'm tired of the hypocracy.

[Bob78164]

Here's 12 instances where it did help.

http://controversialtimes.com/issues/co ... with-guns/

You missed a few. There have been 21 since 2007.

On the other hand, "since 2007, at least 763 people have been killed in 579 shootings that did not involve self-defense. Tellingly, the vast majority of these concealed-carry, licensed shooters killed themselves or others rather than taking down a perpetrator.

"The death toll includes 29 mass killings of three or more people by concealed carry shooters who took 139 lives; 17 police officers shot to death, and — in the ultimate contradiction of concealed carry as a personal safety factor — 223 suicides."

This is a decision in which the cost-benefit analysis is very, very clear. --Bob