Haven't you ever bought illegal drugs before? You just acquire another gun by buying one one the street. Anyone smart and determined to commit a premeditated murder will take the time to get another gun.

Thinking a crazy person committed to murder will stop his plans because he can't legally purchase one isn't being realistic. Hell, , the first person he might kill is someone he knows has a gun.

Like I said before, there is no way to fully prevent all crimes. Those who are very diligent in accomplishing their goals of killing will find one way or another to accomplish that goal.

The point is to make it harder for those people to commit the crime...lessen their avenues of obtaining a gun. Who knows, if the cops took his guns away, this killer might have tried to buy a gun from an undercover. Or he might have bought a defective one from some banger trying to scam him. The point is to lessen the chances of the killer actually obtaining more guns.

If you are seeing a therapist why the hell are you allowed to buy guns. Spare me the first amendment bs.

That would be sharing medical info, illegal in the US. And what would you do? Have government panels review citizens mental views on life?

Why not? If we believe someone is a threat to themselves or others, we can and in fact do lock them up on a involuntary psychiatric hold.

If someone has a history of issues with anger management, they shouldn't be allowed to own firearms. If you have a history of mental illness, you shouldn't be allowed to own firearms. This is common sense.

Who is this mysterious "we" you are referring to? Government employees? If you have children you better hope like hell this never starts.

I think I've cogently stated why there's nothing common sense about that.

there's a direct correlation between depression and alcohol. And DUI drivers kill more people by far than mass murderers like this guy.

So then we should confiscate the cars of people who are seeing therapists for depression and also drink alcohol?

That's the argument here. It's the classic guns don't kill people, people kill people debate, some think guns kill people so we should take their guns away. Others think people kill people.

That is why the government should prevent certain people from keeping guns.

Wow, you want government employees reviewing the thoughts and fantasies or maybe just fictional writings of law abiding American citizens? I'll take an occasional fool shooting someone to how the latter will certainly get abused.

Yes..the police (government employees) should confiscate guns from a person who says they want to kill themselves and other people.

What if they know he will just find another gun? Do they follow him? For how long? 24 hours a day? Minimum of 3 shifts/2 per shift, 6 full time government law enforcement following how many people? Or do you turn a known crazy, I mean you just judged him that, back on the street to finish what he might do?


.

Didn't I just go over that a few posts up when I said this:

"There no way to prevent every single crime. That is obvious. The point it to make it harder for people to commit crimes. Some of those people will inevitably give up because of difficulty. And some of those people who persists may still be caught before the crime, since he had to go through additional hoops to bypass any laws. "

and this:

"The point is to make it harder for those people to commit the crime...lessen their avenues of obtaining a gun. Who knows, if the cops took his guns away, this killer might have tried to buy a gun from an undercover. Or he might have bought a defective one from some banger trying to scam him. The point is to lessen the chances of the killer actually obtaining more guns."

Make it harder to do what the guy is determined to do anyway at the expense of having the government judge how many of it's citizens as potentially unstable? Good luck with that foot in the door.

I am not arguing the government has to judge all citizens that are potentially unstable...just the citizens that are brought to their attention...like the parents did in this case when they alerted the cops.

Your intent is certainly good, I just don't think the science is there yet. If there were standardized methods for evaluating each and every person in a non-subjective vacuum, I could perhaps see trying to move forward on something like this.

But at the same time, the police went and interviewed the guy right? They followed up following procedure right? And they left without seeing anything that would allow them to make a move. Maybe they were lazy/derelict of duty, that's not at all out of the question.

But neither is the chance they did their job, took a look at this guy and within our rights as individuals and their's as police, they can't confiscate this person personal property based on anything they discovered.

I get your slippery slope concerns, and yes the anti gun types will no doubt use this as an excuse to seek sweeping anti gun legislation.

But...

You don't need to be Sigmund Freud to know this guy was a squirrel.

Surely even a government employee can be trusted to cherry pick extreme examples like this one.

And what do you do with him after taking his gun? You've just labeled him dangerous right?

Preventative detention goes way beyond what anyone here is advocating. At most the police look upon him as a potential suspect going forward.

no words

Not to draw further attention to this shooter - but after reading his entire 'manifesto' (basically his entire life story)...it gives an awful lot of chilling insight to his mind. The Youtube videos were merely a small tip of the iceberg, so to speak.

It's a very long read - took me all afternoon. I skipped a few repetitive parts where he merely rants the same misogynistic speech ad nauseum - but for the most part it was extremely articulate, incredibly detailed and intelligently written (given his obviously disturbed mind)...and concludes just prior to the shootings.

I suggest anyone interested in the sociopathic/psychology aspect should give it a read.

If local law enforcement believes you are a threat to yourself or society, they put you on lock down - called a "involuntary psychiatric hold". Why can't we do this with firearms?

All of these cases have the same thing in common - mental health issues. There was massive warning signs yet no one said "It might not be a good idea for you to have firearms". Instead, we handed them firearms.

Not a bad idea but, all the people I have know to get the "involuntary psychiatric hold" get out in a few days with a prescription and a list of dates for some classes.

The police who investigated the guy had the option to 5150 (involuntary psychiatric hold) him, which btw, is a cali statute only and only for 72 hours, etc., but after evaluating him they did not.

again, presuming they did their jobs, they saw nothing that warranted a 5150, the point about confiscating his guns is moot at that point.

He was a member of PUAHate.com, a site advocating hate against pick-up artists. I suspect authorities are worried about copycats, as some are calling him a hero. Both the site and Twitter account are now disabled. This is a screencap of his PUAHate profile page.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Boalv8ACEAA4w4X.png:large

Here's the reason the cops never detained him for a psych eval or even bothered to do a search of his room:

Sheriffs never saw menacing videos before rampage

"Sheriff's deputies who showed up at Elliot Rodger's doorstep last month to check on his mental health hadn't seen online videos in which he threatens suicide and violence even though those recordings were what prompted his parents to call authorities."

http://news.yahoo.com/sheriffs-never...204433571.html

One has to wonder if the cops knew of the videos, but simply never bothered to watch the videos...or if they were never told of the videos in the first place. Its hard for me to believe that the parents never told the cops about the videos...since the videos prompted the parents to call the cops in the first place.

My point exactly. Keep denying the problem at hand.

There is no way that someone that was obviously mental and seeing a therapist should be allowed to buy guns. Why is this so hard to understand?

Anyhow you obviosly don't care down there and rhis will continue to happen. Maybe you'll view it different when it happens to a family member.

He was actually seeing numerous therapists - going back several years. There was a long history of it.

they need to scrape those ips :1orglaugh that last 1 sounds nuts :1orglaugh

not to mention he was seeing one of his therapists on a DAILY BASIS...thats fuckin' nuts right there.

MOAR GUNZ is CLEARLY the answer

He's not denying anything. That is in fact the law.

Now a good argument could be made that there should be exceptions written into the law so as to hopefully screen out nutjobs like this shooter.

But then again, if we do that many gun owners who should get counseling will avoid it for fear of losing their guns and/or (even worse) having their employers become aware of such.

There are no one size fits all answers here.

Exactly... And then when they finish their classes they are evaluated and then it should be determined if they should be allowed to have access to firearms. They remain in the mental health system until they are released by a doctor as being okay and only then should they be cleared to own firearms.

This is not an issue about rights. While we have rights, and we have the right to "bear arms", this is in fact subject to restriction. For example, felons are not allowed to own firearms. We do not allow felons to own firearms because we consider them to be a risk to society when armed. People with mental health issues are also a threat to society when armed.

I have a friend who has a kid who is mentally ill. The kid is twenty-five, He lives in assisted housing, has a job, but cannot drive. He will never rise above being a bus boy, but his parents are thrilled that he can live on his own (or close to it). This twenty-five year old retarded man should not be allowed to own firearms yet there is no law stopping him from buying and owning a firearm. That's fucking scary.

Tobacco kills more you see a ban on it? :2 cents:

And yet no one said anything.

This is very simple.... The moment he applied to permit to own firearms his doctor should have been notified. Don't tell me they can't, it's a searchable database and they can see very doctor someone has ever talked to. They call up the shrink and ask if there is any reason why this person shouldn't have a firearm and when the doctor explains why the permit is denied, end of story.

I have a friend of mine who has mental issues and owns firearms. He goes to church every Sunday but wants to move out of California because Obama is "going to take his guns away". Setting aside the mental issues, he's got two ex-wives, two kids that were raised without him and don't talk to him, he is constantly sick, pissed off, bitter, and hasn't gotten laid in twenty years. No problem - he owns an assault rifle.

Fuck 'em. Give them all firearms. Let god sort them out.

The difference is tobacco slowly kills the person using it, not twenty people instantly.

But come to think of it we should ban it. I smoked for twenty years of my life and quit about five years ago. I'm kicking myself now - I can't believe I was stupid enough to inject that shit into my system for so long.

well about 1300 died today from cigs. monday 1300 more :Oh crap